UPDATE: Changed emphasis from Northern Hemisphere extratropics to entire Northern Hemisphere (h/t John Christy)
In April, 2020, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its 2nd largest 2-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2020 was +0.38 deg. C, down from the March, 2020 value of +0.48 deg. C.
The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly fell from +0.96 deg. C to 0.43 deg. C from February to April, a 0.53 deg. C drop which is the 2nd largest 2-month drop in the 497-month satellite record. The largest 2-month drop was -0.69 deg. C from December 1987 to February 1988.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade (but remains statistically unchanged at +0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15 2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06 2019 03 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.59 2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.92 +0.91 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.33 +0.87 2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24 2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57 2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50 2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38 2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94 2020 01 +0.57 +0.60 +0.53 +0.62 +0.73 +0.12 +0.66 2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30 2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.17 2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.34 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2020 should be available within the next week here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
It appears the arctic air was released last month, mixing well with the tropics. This indicates an increase in meridional jet stream flow in the northern hemisphere. Confirmed by the negative departure in the USA 48 region. Looking forward to the details / data.
Its always funny when people try to imitate phrases without understanding them.
If you want more ask him how “Jupiter and Saturn cause the sun to move away”.
Svante,
The sun must move relative to Jupiter and Saturn. You toy with me for no apparent reason as this is a known fact that this is happening. Here is a cool place where you can see that for yourself.
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
Earth is twelve times faster than Jupiter around the Sun,
and thirty times faster than Saturn.
So the distance difference is averaged out over the year.
Svante,
I understand what you are saying… what you have missed is the significance of the polar night, and the albedo of the north pole verses the south. The south is much better at reflecting energy back into space. When you position Jupiter and Saturn so that a LITTLE bit of extra energy goes to the south pole instead of the north pole, it is enough to tip the earth from one equilibrium energy state into another. It starts off as tiny energy losses each year, but once the cycle gets going it snow balls. More snow in the arctic causes more snow and ice in the arctic and so on. Where the lower equilibrium point is reached will depend on many factors including to a small degree man made influences.
And yet Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycenter.
With Jupiter at 5.2 AU and Earth at 1 AU, Jupiter pulls the
Sun-Earth pair in the same general direction.
Even more true for Saturn at 9.6 AU.
I agree that the climate is sensitive due to feed backs.
Svante,
The sun moves very little due to the earth. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all move it more. Actually, Jupiter moves it more than the earth by more than 3 orders of magnitude. Anyways, the earth works WITH Jupiter and Saturn to move the sun away. The sun must move away to balance the planets when they are all bunched on 1 side… otherwise the orbits would not be stable. Take a look at where all the planets will be late June and please think about it. I do not think it works how you are thinking where the earth is tethered to the sun somehow. I do not believe gravity works that way. Everything is in a constant free fall towards the sun, and the orbit of Jupiter and Saturn change the shape of every other orbit.
Scott R says:
“I do not believe gravity works that way.”
Jupiter makes the Sun wobble compared to the background stars,
but Earth wobbles with it so it has little influence on the Sun-Earth pair.
Jupiters effect on Earth is in delta distance between the two. Ephemeris calculations show that the effect is small.
“I do not believe gravity works that way.”
Can’t find any input field for belief here:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
It’s the same thing with the Earth-Moon wobble. The Earth-Moon system causes the Earth to wobble around the barycenter. But the positioning of satellites, space shuttle, space station, etc. do not bob in and out because of that wobble. There is no difference in the amount of Earth-shine our satellites receive due to this wobble.
Svante,
I agree with you that the Jupiter / Earth direct gravity interaction is small. Let’s forget about all the other planets for a moment and focus on Jupiter, sun and earth. Let’s say everything else went away for the purposes of this discussion and say that Jupiter’s orbit is a perfect circle. When you do that, you have a simple barycenter movement with Jupiter and the sun, where the sun will always move away from Jupiter is it completes it’s orbit. So you are telling me this 1 motion makes no difference to the earth sun distance. Then on top of that Jupiter’s movement between perihelion and aphelion makes no difference, and Saturn makes no difference. etc etc etc I can’t believe it, sorry.
If you want to prove it to me, start with the simple example I gave you with Jupiter with a perfectly circular orbit and explain how that would work.
“When you position Jupiter and Saturn so that a LITTLE bit of extra energy goes to the south pole instead of the north pole, it is enough to tip the earth from one equilibrium energy state into another”
Is this an astrology thing, Scott?
Because it doesnt make sense from the physics POV.
BDGWX explained it nicely.
Scott R says:
You would be right if Earth rotated around the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. It does not, it rotates around the Sun-Earth barycenter. Your idea would have merit if Earth rotated around both Jupiter and the Sun.
Contrary to your school book, the orbits of Jupiter and Earth are not concentric.
Earth’s aphelion/perihelion is +/- 0.02 AU due to eccentricity. The residual is 0.0000 AU.
Scott R says:
Here’s your circular orbit on the left, and the corrected orbit on the right:
https://tinyurl.com/yc78qtqk
Here is the pubpeer thread where the experts were trying to explain to Zharkova how orbital mechanics work.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24
bdgwx I think we all agree that the Milankovitch cycles cause the orbit of the earth to change. IF it was true that Jupiter had no effect on the earth’s orbit similar to the moon / earth / satellite example you gave, why would the earth’s orbit ever change? We also know that satellites do not stay in orbit forever by the way. In fact, our climate data must be adjusted for that. The Milankovitch cycle is caused by the sum of small perturbations over a long period of time. Like it or not, these small perturbations are making a difference to the temperatures of the oceans. It isn’t a steady march in one direction. There are cycles smaller than 100,000 years related to the earths eccentricity. Can you help me get to the bottom of this? I understand that the amplitude of the change in earth / sun distance is small.
bdgwx says: ‘It’s the same thing with the Earth-Moon wobble. The Earth-Moon system causes the Earth to wobble around the barycenter. But the positioning of satellites, space shuttle, space station, etc. do not bob in and out because of that wobble. There is no difference in the amount of Earth-shine our satellites receive due to this wobble.’
—————————–
Right bdgwx! All it does is lift the oceans several feet. Think of what it does to the atmosphere. Of course the moon has no effect on climate because it goes around monthly.
The ignorant always points instantly to earth-shine because they know it isn’t a great deal and they pretend like they can’t think of anything else that might be influenced by such powerful forces. Or perhaps they are just too stupid to think period.
Just a 1% difference in clouds, smaller than we can even measure would have sufficient effect to change climate we have observed. But that simply isn’t a politically correct thought, slap my hand as punishment.
And of course we know the sun has cycles roughly in time with Jupiter’s orbit. But thats not a politically correct thought either is it bdwgx?
In my view we have a lot to learn about radiant heat and the frequencies in which it is emitted. Does relatively low frequency light actually warm something with a higher frequency? We understand wattage of various frequencies but is this only potential to heat or is it actually usable watts?
Frequency of sound is simply canceled from opposing frequencies and forms the basis of noise cancelling headsets and is a sound engineers challenge of wiring and placing speakers.
If you shine some low frequency light back at the surface you may cancel out low frequency light emitting from the surface and in compensation the source of the low frequency light shines an equal amount toward space. At that point it was required to completely invent a new effect – a gaseous insulating blanket.
I am not saying it doesn’t work. In fact I am pretty sure it works for at least one layer. I am merely saying science has a ways to go. I am all ears on what I might have missed already.
bill,
The ocean is not in free orbit around the Earth. It is affected by the tidal influence of Moon in a different way. It has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance or the Earth-satellite distance.
Regarding my Earth-shine comment…the Sun-shine that the Sun’s satellites receive is not affected by the Sun-Jupiter barycenter wobble just as the Earth-shine that the Earth’s satellites receive is not affected by the Earth-Moon barycenter wobble.
Clouds are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise. This has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
Solar cycles are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-;sun distance though.
And yes solar cycles are believed to be influenced by planetary orbits. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
Yes. We are still learning about the warming effects of radiation. Our knowledge on the topic is not perfect nor will it ever be. But it’s also not zero either and the level of knowledge is always increasing. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
bdgwx,
Thanks for the link to that discussion. A very fascinating (at least to me) argument there. Perhaps we are all wrong and live in an electric universe which explains why the earth bonds to the sun’s barycenter movement and Jupiter does not. (haha?) I wonder if they discussed dark matter at all and the orbit of stars around the galactic center. I’ll have to keep reading / learning. That is what this is all about.
Scott,
Yes. We can definitely agree on Milankovitch cycles. However these cycles do not change the amount of radiation Earth receives. Instead they change the distribution of that radiation.
Yes. We can definitely agree that Jupiter perturbs Earth’s orbit. However, these perturbation has have no residual effect on the amount radiation Earth receives when examined over several orbital periods.
What I and experts disagree with Zharkova over is the claim that the Sun-Jupiter barycenter wobble affects the amount of radiation Earth receives. It has no affect because the Earth-Sun distance does not change because of solar inertial movement.
“The ignorant always..” Lots of undeserved ad homs for demonstrably smart and infinitely tolerant BDGWX in there, Bill.
Point?
“In my view we have a lot to learn about radiant heat…”
But none of what you say after that makes any sense at all, Bill.
“Does relatively low frequency light actually warm something with a higher frequency?”
Huh??
“We understand wattage of various frequencies but is this only potential to heat or is it actually usable watts?”
??
“Frequency of sound is simply canceled from opposing frequencies”
??
Where do you get these gems?
bdgwx,
The distribution of energy does impact our climate because the albedo is not constant. The south pole reflects better than the north pole. I think we agree that if the south pole is getting more energy on the millennial time scale, the earth cools.
Proposal: small perturbations in the earths orbit sum up to create the Milankovitch cycles. The perturbations do not act constantly at the same vector and will be cyclical, proportionate to the location of Jupiter primarily. Agree?
The short term perturbations in the earths orbit do not change the total TSI, but it does change where the energy is received, therefore impacting our climate.
bdgwx says:
The ocean is not in free orbit around the Earth. It is affected by the tidal influence of Moon in a different way. It has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance or the Earth-satellite distance.
————————-
Well obviously you don’t understand the tides are influenced by gravity as is our orbit.
bdgwx says:
Regarding my Earth-shine comment…the Sun-shine that the Sun’s satellites receive is not affected by the Sun-Jupiter barycenter wobble just as the Earth-shine that the Earth’s satellites receive is not affected by the Earth-Moon barycenter wobble.
——————–
Thats just false bdgwx. You can try to argue that the effect is too small but you are ignorant if you argue it doesn’t exist. And its an ignorant argument its too small also because you have no data to support that beyond direct total sunlight.
bdgwx says:
Clouds are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise.
——————
You are wrong again. Since they are both unquantified and ignored the only reason why is its political.
bdgwx says:
Solar cycles are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-;sun distance though.
And yes solar cycles are believed to be influenced by planetary orbits. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
Yes. We are still learning about the warming effects of radiation. Our knowledge on the topic is not perfect nor will it ever be. But it’s also not zero either and the level of knowledge is always increasing. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
—————–
It may have little to do with earth sun distance but it does have something to do with it. You can’t ignore that science believes that two orbiting bodies assume similar shaped orbits around their common barycenter. Add in more planets and the laws of physics on gravity and distance and there it would be violation of the laws of physics for it to not have an effect on earth sun distance.
Ontop of which earth sun distance is but one of many variables. . . .including affects of gravitational forces on solar gases potentially affecting solar cycles and the frequency of light given off by the sun. then a total wild card of magnetic pulses occurring between the earth and sun from unknown causes. Magnetism pulls on everything to some extent. but you ignorantly just believe what you have been told to believe. Nobody has proven it to you are you would be laying out proofs rather than ignorantly pooh poohing everything you don’t want to believe.
And science is making slow progress on the affects of other planets in climate. Here is an article from PNAS on just that topic. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/24/6153
Nate says:
“The ignorant always..” Lots of undeserved ad homs for demonstrably smart and infinitely tolerant BDGWX in there, Bill.
Point?
———————-
Nothing ad hominem about ignorance Nate. We are all relatively ignorant. The real ad hom would be a word for somebody who actually believes he is not ignorant, one who doesn’t do the work day in and day out to better understand exactly what it is that makes our world as marvelous as it is. But the fact is that person is only slightly less ignorant.
Nate says:
“In my view we have a lot to learn about radiant heat…”
But none of what you say after that makes any sense at all, Bill.
—————–
bdgwx picked up on that Nate. Perhaps you should do a little research on how vibrations warm stuff. Thermosphere is very hot because it warms from high frequency light from the sun and has nothing around like CO2 to cool it before it gets that hot.
Nate says:
“Does relatively low frequency light actually warm something with a higher frequency?”
Huh??
“We understand wattage of various frequencies but is this only potential to heat or is it actually usable watts?”
??
“Frequency of sound is simply canceled from opposing frequencies”
??
Where do you get these gems?
—————–
Add any two identical wave frequencies together in opposite phase and get get less amplitude. Study up on noise canceling technology. All it is is monitoring incoming noise noting its frequency and amplitude then generating an identical signal 180 degrees out of phase with the incoming sound.
bill,
I never said ocean tides are not influenced by gravity. What I said was that ocean tides do not behave the same way as objects in free orbit. The fact that ocean tides ebb and flow does not in anyway suggest that satellites in free orbit bob in and out.
The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as a result of solar inertial movement about the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. Therefore the amount of radiation received by Earth via this same phenomenon does not change either. It’s not the effect is small; it’s that the effect is completely non-existent. If you are trying to argue otherwise then understand that the argument is wrong.
Regarding clouds…refer to IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 8. There you will find information about clouds, their effect on the climate system, estimates of the effect, and numerous publication citations in which you can explorer all of the details if you desire.
bdgwx says:
The fact that ocean tides ebb and flow does not in anyway suggest that satellites in free orbit bob in and out.
The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as a result of solar inertial movement about the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. Therefore the amount of radiation received by Earth via this same phenomenon does not change either. Its not the effect is small; its that the effect is completely non-existent. If you are trying to argue otherwise then understand that the argument is wrong.
———————
bdgwx it would be a violation of basic well accepted physics of gravity and distance if the satellites didn’t bob in and out when exposed to gravitational fields from the other planets.
The only rational argument you can make is the bobbing is extremely minor. But it does exist. However, its silly talking about the planets themselves having solar TSI affected by the process as the movement is very small because the gravity difference and distance compared to the sun’s gravitational pull is very small.
However, the speculation on this having a climate effect isn’t based upon planets slightly changing their orbit as they move around the sun in front of say Jupiter and then on the other side of the sun from Jupiter. The theories I have discussed are what effects Jupiter in particular and Saturn secondarily have on solar gases. It takes very little force to move gases. Solar scientists haven’t found convincing evidence of this but OTOH they are struggling to come up with anything convincing about how the sun actually operates and varies essentially blowing prediction after prediction and getting stuff right essentially by random chance.
bdgwx says:
Regarding cloudsrefer to IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 8. There you will find information about clouds, their effect on the climate system, estimates of the effect, and numerous publication citations in which you can explorer all of the details if you desire.
———————-
I am not interested in exploring cloud effects. I am interested in how clouds vary. For a starter it would be good if we could measure clouds to somewhere above 99% accuracy. Then you would at least know what to look for.
Thanks for that pubpeer link bdgwx, interesting reading but rather sad. Scott R got the concept quickly compared to the professor.
Thousands of people could have told her, but there’s only a few there, why?
I’m afraid it’s like Richard Muller described here:
https://tinyurl.com/ua7lsht
That doesn’t cause the Sun to move away from the Earth or change the amount of radiation the Earth receives though.
bdgwx,
The earth’s albedo is not uniform, therefore the shape of the orbit does change the amount of energy the earth absorbs. The south pole is especially good at reflecting the suns energy. Currently, the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn in the current location is causing the perihelion to be reduced slightly, and the aphelion to be increased slightly. That puts more energy on the south pole where it reflects and less energy on the north pole.
‘Currently, the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn in the current location is causing the perihelion to be reduced slightly, and the aphelion to be increased slightly. That puts more energy on the south pole where it reflects and less energy on the north pole.’
Uhhh, reference?
My understanding is that Earths orbital parameters change only over thousands of years, which give rise, eg, to the Milankovitch cycles.
Nate says: ‘My understanding is that Earths orbital parameters change only over thousands of years, which give rise, eg, to the Milankovitch cycles.’
Your understanding is wrong. The Milankovitch cycle theory speculates that the earths orbital parameters vary in order to create the pattern of glaciations and interglacials we have seen.
It doesn’t say squat about there not being any other shorter period effects that vary earth’s orbit. In fact, scientific understanding of how gravity works demands there be other orbital variations. Anybody halfway familiar with the issue understands that. Those who think it doesn’t matter simply say its too small to have an effect on our climate. They don’t ignorantly say it doesn’t exist.
And of course how small is too small? Fact is nobody knows. Gases are incredibly sensitive to any kind of forcing to a point many believe the movement of gases is chaotic in nature. We don’t understand the effects of magnetism on our atmosphere nor do we understand high frequency light and its potential effects, nor do we understand the potential association of that to other planets affecting the sun’s gas atmosphere.
The fact is Nate, you are using an illogical argument to argue for your point of view and you are reduced to that sort of illogical argument because you can’t quantify the effects of what you believe affects climate either.
Bill,
“shorter period effects that vary earths orbit”
Please do tell us all that you know about these effects.
And Bill, how the Earth’s orbital parameters change is well understood, and is NOT Milankovitch’s theory.
Milankovitch’s theory is about how the KNOWN orbital changes over thousands of years produce the glacial cycles.
Nate says:
Bill,
shorter period effects that vary earths orbit
Please do tell us all that you know about these effects.
———————
Hmmmm, about as much as anybody else knows about any effects on climate.
Nate says:
And Bill, how the Earths orbital parameters change is well understood, and is NOT Milankovitchs theory.
Milankovitchs theory is about how the KNOWN orbital changes over thousands of years produce the glacial cycles.
———————
Hmmmm, perhaps English isn’t your first language. Thats what I said. The Milankovitch theory doesn’t rule out other effects as you were attempting to do so by saying thats the only way changes occur.
Put a large number of external variable into effect, magnetism, gravity from the entire universe, sunlight, solar cycles, cosmic radiation then mix it with a chaotic or near chaotic gaseous atmosphere with the phase changes of water, aerosols, carbon dioxide, methane, and you probably get some random walks of climate and huge amounts of momentum occurring for out of equilibrium conditions caused by a variety of forcings of all sorts. It seems idiotic to pin the entire fate of the world on one unproven theory over all others. It was idiotic 32 years ago and its gotten nothing but more idiotic since as the initial projections of doom and gloom have failed to substantially materialize.
Meanwhile IPCC science has cranked back from 1.5c to 4.5c warming to .8c to 2.5c. In my trade when we saw such events we realized that eyes were just cracking open on an issue and that more likely than not the difference would continue to widen.
And thats pretty scientific of a concept as its well known how stubborn and invested folks become and how they resist change. In fact the whole of excite about a little global warming is symptomatic of resistance to change whether it be good or bad.
bill said: Meanwhile IPCC science has cranked back from 1.5c to 4.5c warming to .8c to 2.5c.
Can you post the IPCC publication that states they are now going with a range of 0.8-2.5C for 2xCO2? I’d like to review that.
“It seems idiotic to pin the entire fate of the world on one unproven theory over all others”
And thats why no one is claiming that, Bill.
A poor attempt at strawman.
“Hmmmm, about as much as anybody else knows about any effects on climate.”
You know nothing about it, but claim it is important, and assume, falsely, that science knows as much as you do.
At least you’re consistent.
bdgwx says:
Can you post the IPCC publication that states they are now going with a range of 0.8-2.5C for 2xCO2? I’d like to review that.
—————-
IPCC AR5 WG1
bill,
Here is what I see in IPCC AR5 WGI SPM page 16 bullet point 2.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).
bdgwx you are reading the SPM, Summary for Policy Makers a document prepared by policy makers not scientists.
Can you point me to what I’m supposed to be looking at then?
I gave you the reference bdgwx. If you don’t read the whole section on the physical basis you will not gain any concept of the wide range of disagreement among the participants.
Bill made up a factoid, got caught. Oh well.
Just admit and move on.
yes nate says please move along, nothing to see in the actual document written by scientists, better to just absorb what the politicians approved in the summary document. LMAO!!
bill said: I gave you the reference bdgwx. If you don’t read the whole section on the physical basis you will not gain any concept of the wide range of disagreement among the participants.
I read the entirety of chapter 12 actually; not just one section. In fact the SPM reference I gave you explicitly points you to Box 12.2 beginning on pg. 1110 of the ARG WGI Physical Science Basis. It states 1.5-4.5C there too.
Bill,
‘better to just absorb what the politicians approved in the summary document.’
You ask us to do work to confirm or disprove information that you’ve simply made up, and cant be bothered to check yourself.
Par for the course with you.
bdgwx says: I read the entirety of chapter 12 actually; not just one section.
——————–
You can’t get chapter 12 right unless you first pin down chapter 10. There you will find the .8 to 2.5.
Chapter 12 then speculates on longterm feedbacks when there is no consensus on how much warming will occur and has occurred as a direct result of radiative forcing. Its a premise necessary for Chapter 12.
Here is more reading on the topic.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/
https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/22/climate-change-whats-the-worst-case/
https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/
Des, Svante, please stop trolling.
As a relative simpleton I would like to ask a simple question.
Could the shutdown of America have led to an immediate effect on the jet stream leading to these change of temperatures. I always thought that the ever increasing methane levels over the country might also have an effect.
I also wondered if the rapid movement of the magnetic north pole might also be signalling something deep within the mantle. On top of everything is it the year for increased volcanic and earthquake activity?
Hey Brian,
The change to meridional jet stream flow was inevitable. The arctic was like a coiled spring of negative energy. The strong jet stream locked up the cold air all winter. When it was released, we saw the arctic spike in temperature and USA 48 drop. There is no relation to man made gases.
The global shutdown won’t have a significant effect either way.
There is little evidence to suggest that Earth’s magnetic field has any meaningful affect on the climate today.
As for the jet stream the amplified warming in the Arctic region may lead to what is called quasi-resonant amplification of the polar jet. This a long term process though. And it is still heavily debated in academic circles.
bdgwx says:
There is little evidence to suggest that Earths magnetic field has any meaningful affect on the climate today. As for the jet stream the amplified warming in the Arctic region may lead to what is called quasi-resonant amplification of the polar jet. This a long term process though. And it is still heavily debated in academic circles.
——————-
There is little evidence to suggest any specific thing is affecting our climate. And heavy debate exists regarding all the various potential mechanisms. . . .maybe not in academic circles as much but academic circles largely get all their science funding from a single source.
There is a mountain of evidence that says grand solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, clouds, aerosols, dust, biological activity, greenhouse gases, ocean currents, continental positioning, CFCs, land use changes, land-albedo feedbacks, ice-albedo feedbacks, agriculture, and I myriad of other things do IN FACT have an affect on the climate. None of these are disputed in any significant way.
Things that are significantly disputed are magnetic fields and galactic cosmic rays, etc.
Bdgwx, lets confine the discussion for a moment to discussion of the solar output, since you seem focused on that. Quite honestly I haven’t studied this aspect but on the surface I am hearing that solar output varies by .1% output during solar cycles which amounts to 1.4 watts/m2. Since we have only been able to accurately measure this outside of the atmosphere I suspect the data record to the current degree of accuracy is only 40 years long. And since water vapor accounts for by far the lionshare of the greenhouse effect why would not water vapor respond to solar input?
As an auditor my audit flags started flying high and red when I heard from the science community no less that all the water vapor in the air came from a few watts of CO2 greenhouse effect and the effect of a ~1365 watt sun was being completely ignored. So a doubling of CO2 is supposed to produce another 3 something watts of CO2 forcing from which roughly 1/4 of which has occurred in the satellite era, amounting to about .8watts, less than the change of a solar cycle.
So what am I missing? And thats not to talk about the fact solar cycles affect high frequency light as a wattage percentage far more than overall wattage. But I already know you don’t have much to say about that because of ignorance of what that might imply.
And forget about dividing the solar output by four which is a favorite ploy in this discussion. Fact is most evaporation and convection occurs during 1/4 to 1/2 of a day on 1/4 to 1/2 of the planet surface at a time. And as such I am not talking about unproven insulation-making multiple layers of a gas blanket I am talking only about the well established effect of having warm greenhouse gases in the sky in one single layer.
Where I debark from the runaway greenhouse effect train is how all this is orchestrated instead by a layer of CO2 above the action layer. If you have some lucid comments on this very specific view of the situation I would be quite interested.
bill,
Where are you getting claims that clouds and now the sun are “completely ignored”? I’d like to review where these claims are coming from.
Anyway…a 0.1% change in solar output equates to about 1360 * 0.001 = 1.4 W/m^2 change in TSI. To convert this to the radiative forcing at the surface you divide by 4 to account for the fact that Earth is a sphere and then multiple by 0.7 to account for Earth’s albedo. This gives an RF of 1.4 / 4 * 0.7 = 0.25 W/m^2.
But that is the trough-to-peak change. The peak-to-peak, trough-to-trough, or mid-to-mid change is 0 W/m^2. Likewise the residual change over several equal cycles is 0 W/m^2. So the net change in solar forcing over several cycles is 0 W/m^2.
Long term solar forcing is actually driven by the grand cycles. It can produce up to 0.25 W/m^2 of forcing for several decades. The modern grand maximum peaked around 1960. Solar activity and solar radiation has been on a secular decline ever since.
So the 2xCO2 forcing about an order of magnitude higher than the forcing from the solar grand cycles.
why divide it by 4?
CO2 forcing in terms of evaporating water vapor is simply wasted wattage at night where the surface is cooling faster than the atmosphere. And evaporating water would seem to be how you get greenhouse effects feedback.
Thus while “the greenhouse effect” is produced by greenhouse gases over the entire surface of the planet, and average insolation tells you the equivalent sunshine. It doesn’t need to follow that evaporation is a mean surface temperature thing.
Do you have a study that elucidates on this issue a bit more? Some times when you just run with averages you don’t get the same results.
TSI is measured perpendicular to the surface. To convert it into the flux over the entire Earth you divide by 4. The division by 4 occurs because the Earth is a sphere so its surface bend away from the Sun’s rays. The rays spread out over larger and larger areas the closer to the poles you get. Then, of course, only half of the Earth is lit at any given time. So the average flux Earth receives at TOA is actually 1360 / 4 = 340 W/m^2. And the amount taken up by Earth is 340 * 0.7 = 240 W/m^2 with 100 W/m^2 being reflected away.
bdgwx says: TSI is measured perpendicular to the surface. To convert it into the flux over the entire Earth you divide by 4. The division by 4 occurs because the Earth is a sphere so its surface bend away from the Sun’s rays. The rays spread out over larger and larger areas the closer to the poles you get. Then, of course, only half of the Earth is lit at any given time. So the average flux Earth receives at TOA is actually 1360 / 4 = 340 W/m^2. And the amount taken up by Earth is 340 * 0.7 = 240 W/m^2 with 100 W/m^2 being reflected away.
——————————–
You didn’t answer the question bdgwx
I wasn’t measuring global mean TSI bdgwx. You only need to do that to measure pre-feedback sensitivity.
I was measuring the increase in TSI where water is evaporating, not where just the cooling is slowed down. Water doesn’t generally evaporate at night because the surface is cooling, water is condensing. Its also probably the case that large areas of the sunny half of the globe doesn’t get sufficient light to evaporate much water either. Probably 3/4’s of global mean forcing doesn’t do squat if its evenly distributed. You need to get it under the 1365 watt sun where the surface is warming fast for it to kick arse on water vapor feedback.
Like I asked do you have study that explicitly refutes what I am saying? You just parroting the CAWG propaganda line simply doesn’t impress me. I like to see the science on it.
bill, you asked “why divide it by 4?”. The answer is because Earth is a sphere. Water vapor is an important topic too. What is your question exactly?
bdgwx says:
bill, you asked why divide it by 4?. The answer is because Earth is a sphere. Water vapor is an important topic too. What is your question exactly?
———————–
The topic I was discussing when you suggested dividing it by 4 was the evaporation of water which is recognized as a feedback twice the original forcing.
Dividing by 4 is what you do to figure mean global TSI. But what I am talking about is a focused concentration on evaporating water and if you spray your heat texas sharpshooter style you aren’t going to get as much evaporation as if you aim the heat at the water at the same time 1365watts of TSI is aiming at the water.
So to be abundantly clear as it seems necessary. I understand how you divide by 4 to get average TSI across the entire globe. But its a texas sharpshooter fallacy to claim you need to do the same thing to estimate the rate of water evaporation increase. Basic physics of water evaporation should tell you that.
bdgwx chooses not to understand when you explain that dividing by four, whilst all well and good mathematically, doesn’t represent the correct physics that exist in a real-world scenario.
bill said: But its a texas sharpshooter fallacy to claim you need to do the same thing to estimate the rate of water evaporation increase. Basic physics of water evaporation should tell you that.
I never said you divide by 4 in regards to quantifying anything with evaporation. What I said is that if you want to quantify the RF corresponding to solar TSI changes you use the formula RF = delta-TSI/4 * 0.7. Also understand that CO2’s RF almost always includes the WV feedback unless specifically noted otherwise. In other words 2xCO2 at 3.7 W/m^2 includes the WV feedback.
DREMT,
The amount of energy Earth receives in one year is 1360 W/m^2 / 4 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 year = 173e15 W-years. That is real physics. If you don’t divide TSI by 4 you get the wrong answer. That is wrong physics.
…and the amount you get on a second by second basis is received only over the lit hemisphere. And that is the correct physics.
bdgwx says:
I never said you divide by 4 in regards to quantifying anything with evaporation.
———————-
You were responding to my comments on evaporation bdgwx. Thus its perfectly reasonable to assume that is what you were saying. I will accept your retraction.
bill, You requested that we “confine the discussion for a moment to discussion of the solar output”. So that’s what I did. Shame on me for not spelling out that the divide 4 is only necessary for geometric conversions like from a disk to a sphere and that because quantification of RF from CO2 and WV or quantification of evaporation needs no such conversion you need not divide by 4. I’ll try to be more careful in the future. However, understand that I also do not want to patronize you so I’m going to still err on the side of you understanding the context and refrain from spelling things out unless I’m absolutely certain it is necessary.
bdgwx says:
bill, You requested that we “confine the discussion for a moment to discussion of the solar output”.
—————
That would be “solar output” not mean insolation on the surface of earth.
—————-
—————-
bdgwx says:
So that’s what I did. Shame on me for not spelling out that the divide 4 is only necessary for geometric conversions like from a disk to a sphere and that because quantification of RF from CO2 and WV or quantification of evaporation needs no such conversion you need not divide by 4. I’ll try to be more careful in the future. However, understand that I also do not want to patronize you so I’m going to still err on the side of you understanding the context and refrain from spelling things out unless I’m absolutely certain it is necessary.
———————-
Its understandable when you believe a theory that CO2 is the only way that water vapor gets into the atmosphere bdgwx.
bill said: That would be “solar output” not mean insolation on the surface of earth.
Ok, sure. What are thinking exactly?
bill said: Its understandable when you believe a theory that CO2 is the only way that water vapor gets into the atmosphere bdgwx.
I don’t believe that CO2 is the only way that water vapor gets into the atmosphere and I don’t want you to believe that either. Would you like to explorer this topic further?
sure lets explore this. i may have assumed you were a believer in the CO2 is the climate control knob theory that is the essential basis of the ECS figures you bandied about from Chapter 12.
Here is what the science says in regard to WV and how it relates to long term changes in global temperature.
It is a condensing gas. That means it evaporates into the atmosphere and precipitates out of the atmosphere via phase changes. These phase changes are determine by pressure and temperature. And as you probably know pressure and temperature are also coupled with each other. For each temperature and pressure level there is a maximum amount of WV that a parcel of air can hold. The smaller the spread between the temperature and dewpoint the more/less likely it is for H2O to condense/evaporate. The larger the spread between the temperature and dewpoint the less/more likely it is for H2O to condense/evaporate. The effect this has on a planetary scale is to create a stable equilibrium between WV content and temperature. Perturbations away from this equilibrium result in processes that drive WV content back towards the equilibrium. And finally these evaporation and precipitation processes are very rapid.
What this means is that WV, on its own, cannot force a change in temperature. The reason is precisely because it is a condensing gas. Perturbations above/below the equilibrium set by the temperature tend to self correct before the energy imbalances they cause have enough to time to change the temperature. This is the a crucial concept.
But…don’t hear what I’m not saying. That does NOT mean that WV cannot amplify a temperature change. It most certainly does. But it requires another agent to force or catalyze that change first. Once a temperature change has been catalyzed by something else the GHG of the WV works to amplify that change.
There are many agents that can catalyze temperature changes on their own. These include but are not limited to changes in solar output, changes in stratospheric aerosols, changes in albedo, changes in non-condensing GHGs, and many more. What sets WV apart from CO2, CH4, etc. is that it is condensing whereas the others are non-condensing. The amount of CO2, CH4, etc. that the atmosphere can hold is NOT dependent on the temperature. There is no natural equilibrium in which those gas are forced to condense out…because…they are non-condensing in an atmospheric environment.
CO2 is not the climate control knob. It is only a participant in the climate control knob. It must be considered in totality with all of the other agents that can catalyze temperature changes. There can be periods in which CO2 dominates over all of the other agents and periods in which is is quiescent. We just happen to live in an era where it is dominating.
If there is something you don’t understand or something you feel that I have not articulated well then please ask questions. Don’t presume I believe something that I don’t. And, of course, if you feel that I have not described what science understands about WV correctly then please chime on that too.
as you know you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I have since a young child had a compulsion to experiment. I don’t know where the compulsion arose but I was never satisfied with an explanation without understanding the role of every variable thoroughly and understanding how things changed with changes in experimental subject and all it variations of its variables.
I can appreciate the physics that goes into all of it as physics was always my favorite among the sciences. However, I gravitated into natural sciences rather than physics with their much greater complexities all the while keeping an open mind to all the possibilities that such complexities opened up.
The following article probably best describes the uneasiness with the popular version of the effects of CO2. I have been squarely in this corner of concern practically since the first day I took an interest in climate science since about 14 years ago. The reason was I was already dealing with the exact same issue that Dr Curry discusses here in my area of natural science for nearly a decade before taking up an interest in climate science.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/
you should enjoy this being an avowed control knob skeptic.
That’s right, CO2 is long term.
I can be overwhelmed by other factors for decades.
And then it wins.
Svante says:
‘Thats right, CO2 is long term.
I can be overwhelmed by other factors for decades.
And then it wins.’
LOL! Talking about jumping to conclusions. If you mention YD,8.2K,LIA you re talking about much longer phenomena running into centuries. Its just not as obvious as a modern instrument record anomaly that doesn’t have the luxury of centuries. So you have to deal with unobserved anecdotal and proxy data.
Then you talk about Santer’s 17 year fingerprint which at the time was thought to be sufficient to define climate and single it out against natural variation. But multi-decadal was just ignored though it was right in front of them at the time.
So do we set the bar at multi-decadal? Well if we do we still have a few decades to wait out. What if its multi-centennial?
I can agree that CO2 provides some modest but very important climate stability but winning in the long run even at the multi-decadal bar isn’t saying much considering the half life of it is multi-decadal.
Here’s some university (not blog) science:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/
Put in a 400 ppm spike and ‘Show 10,000 Years’.
Point at the temperature anomaly curve to see the result.
CH4 is easier to fix because it is short term.
Her concern is time scale, ok, fine.
But she admits:
“From the perspective of comparative planetology, I think that Lacis makes a plausible argument, from which I infer that without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earths climate would more closely resemble the climate of its moon rather than the current Earths climate.”
“I gravitated into natural sciences rather than physics”
My physics dept was in the College of Natural Sciences. Makes sense to me.
Svante says:
May 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM
Here’s some university (not blog) science:
————————
the multidecadal half life comes from ipcc ar5
Where do you see that (I’m not familiar with the IPCC reports)?
They have only charted up to the year 2500:
https://tinyurl.com/yap5e8r7
Svante says:
Where do you see that (I’m not familiar with the IPCC reports)?
They have only charted up to the year 2500:
———————————-
You need to go back to Roy’s last post comments discussed in length there with a bunch of references
Blog science then I’m afraid, but where was that exactly?
svante, lol! indeed ipcc science isn,t much removed from blog science.
But there is much more in the comment section of Roy’s previous post, mostly by Chic Bowdry and Bdgwx.
Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 WG1 main reports on the topic. Much is there including an acknowledgement that CO2 would decay quickly to about half its pulse and then more slowly.
Near as I can tell all the sinks that would delay decay would be the dying vegetation and animal life that croaked from a lack of CO2 as they would croak and the carbon they have sequestered would rot slowly. but the ipcc demurred from such a depiction and instead declined to offer an explanation for an extended second half decay.
What you are looking at is model output. Even the scientists at IPCC don’t believe that stuff. Not that its way off, but quite simply all this isn’t well understood. If you don’t read the discussion thoroughly in the IPCC reports you will not be able to put those graphs in the correct context.
Then I’ll stick with the University model.
It is compatible with the IPCC graphs.
The oceans will take up most of a 400 ppm spike within a couple of millenia.
A significant part is left in the atmosphere for a hundred thousand years.
If we stop adding more that is, and unless we can remove it.
If bdgwx says otherwise I’ll reconsider.
Svante says:
Then Ill stick with the University model.
It is compatible with the IPCC graphs.
The oceans will take up most of a 400 ppm spike within a couple of millenia.
A significant part is left in the atmosphere for a hundred thousand years.
If we stop adding more that is, and unless we can remove it.
If bdgwx says otherwise Ill reconsider.
===============================
Of course you will! Why? Because you are overly impressed by models.
I have worked with difficult models for almost 40 years. I don’t know anybody who has done that with models under development who is anywhere near as impressed as you are.
That said, IPCC science consensus believes about half of a 400ppm peak would decay in a few decades. The graph you are looking at sustains the use of fossil fuels forever and different levels and different slopes so the graph is not going to show how fast a spike is going to decay if fossil fuel use was completely replaced by renewables.
So I can’t say the graph you are looking at is actually saying any thing different than what I am saying. Fact is using half lives of a few decades would leave some trace of CO2 in the atmosphere in thousands of years (assuming no other changes in an ever changing atmosphere) strictly using the c14 decay model. And of course their may be soils that take up carbon in methane deposits that take eons to leak back into the atmosphere. Disregading those ‘temporary’ sinks the modelers are using for scare tactics, they also like to scare you into thinking we are going to start uncovering some of the sinks and sending them into the ocean even faster.
It all sounds like to me like a good thing. What really sounds bad is calling our current 400ppm a spike and wishing it would all disappear.
But if you meant a 400ppm spike in 130 years from now well thats not nearly as bad but who wants to go back to the LIA?
Please supply an exact up to date IPCC citation.
Those curves show what happens if we stop burning fossil fuel.
Temperature does not go down as fast as CO2 because of the band saturation effect.
Here’s university science from an expert:
https://tinyurl.com/y72vcnxl
Svante says:
Please supply an exact up to date IPCC citation.
Those curves show what happens if we stop burning fossil fuel.
=============================
the lowest curve was the Paris Accord
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
It contradicts you, what a surprise:
that doesn’t contradict me Svante. 1/3rd to 1/2 is a large fraction.
You said “a few decades”.
IPCC says “multi-century to millennial”.
It would save time if you could provide quotes instead of gish-gallops.
Svante says:’
You said a few decades.
IPCC says multi-century to millennial.
It would save time if you could provide quotes instead of gish-gallops.’
==============================================
i am having a hard time actually believing you are so
stupid so you must be obfuscating. i said half of the CO2 pulse will be gone in a few decades if we stop using fossil fuels.
That is from the IPCC and I gave you the reference.
You said: quoted the IPCC as saying: ‘A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to
millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period..
There is no inconsistency between what I said the IPCC said and what you said the IPCC. Only a moron would think so.
OK, we can agree:
“half of the CO2 pulse will be gone in a few decades if we stop using fossil fuels”
and
“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to
millennial time scale”.
thats somewhat fair. its good to know from the naaratives that they feel a lot more confident about the first statement than the second one because looking the wide ranges put forth via the pulse resulting in a significant increase of biota sinks, which makes up about 90% of the temporary sinks.
While the IPCC doesn’t get into details on that due likely to wide disagreement it does seem likely that if the biota sinks don’t enlar ge or shrink (which many of the doomsday folks contend); than that large fraction in the end might disappear as fast as the first half.
OTOH if they do significantly enlarge (massive greening) then the second half of the pulse might be around for a long time to come. Which would likely be a good thing, feeding a growing population.
in fact it might be so good, like better than now we might become overly addicted to it. imo, we are already addicted to good times.
bdgwx says:
Things that are significantly disputed are magnetic fields and galactic cosmic rays, etc.
———–
I especially like the etc. LMAO! So all it takes is significant dispute? or is that dispute significance?
There are, of course, other hypothesis that have been falsified. I cannot name them all. Magnetic fields and GCRs tend to be favored by contrarians so I just happen to mention those because of their popularity.
Yes. When hypothesis have been falsified they tend to drop further down the list of possible causative mechanism. The more they get falsified and the harder scientist try to find supporting evidence without finding anything the more unlikely they become to be legit.
By focusing on these outlier and only these outlier hypothesis you are not being very skeptical.
Falsified? I wasn’t aware any of the alternatives had been falsified. Perhaps you could provide a source for that claim?
Not so shocking. The graph looks as anticipated by many big org. However, the main challenge is to know how to deal with it.
Bracing for the inevitable claptrap from Gore and company…
Claptrap: 0.14 C per decade of warming over 41 years.
More relevant perhaps is 0.18C per decade over land.
Even more relevant perhaps is the 0.30C per decade actually on land. rather than a few kilometres overhead.
That’s good, right?
midas…”Even more relevant perhaps is the 0.30C per decade actually on land. rather than a few kilometres overhead”.
None of it is on land, all of it is in the atmosphere. A surface station in Denver, Colorado would be at an altitude of over 5000 feet into the atmosphere whereas one in Bolivia would be over 15,000 feet. Furthermore, there are temperature inversions near the surface that can be misleading.
The satellites cover 95% of the planet’s surface whereas surface stations sparsely cover the 30% of the surface that is land area. The oceans are really sparsely covered. Those calculating surface averages have resorted to fudging the temperatures for areas in a climate model based on an interpolation and homogenizations of real temperatures up to 1200 miles away.
The surface record is so fudged it has become unreliable.
that’s a lie about coverage of the surface area
GR
The satellites do NOT cover the surface.
Gordon, good comment and extremely important. Surface data sets are very poor and are not based on anything closely approaching “science”.
I always get a kick out of the true believers who feel the need to deny basic scientific principles to support the surface temperature abortions.
RM, can you provide a link to a surface dataset that you believe is based on science?
Accuracy of surface instrumental record now confirmed with satellite obvservations.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e/pdf
Robert Ingersol
Thanks, I completely forgot this AIRS paper. Hopefully their grid data is in ASCII, and not in NetCDF format.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
sys…”Claptrap: 0.14 C per decade of warming over 41 years”.
Once more for the bean-counters who create graphs without looking at the underlying contexts.
The first 18 years of the UAH time series indicates global average anomalies colder than the average to that point from 1979. It was not till 1998 that the anomalies broke through the baseline and became true warming.
Even at that, there was an 18 years flat trend following the 1998 EN spike and it was another EN spike in 2016 that drove the trend upward again. Since then, the global average has been working its way down in fits and starts.
How can anyone claim a 0.14C/decade linear ‘TRUE” warming trend when 18 years was below average and another 18 years had a flat trend? What happens if the anomalies drop back to the baseline? How then will you calculate the trend?
These trends are not calculated using a best fit of the data over the entire range since that could not be done using end points between 1979 and 2020. They are calculated using algorithms that ignore the physical contexts. They operate on the data alone without consideration of the contexts from which the data came.
The only way a 0.14C trend could have been calculated for TRUE warming would have been a scenario in which the UAH trend began at the baseline in 1979 and continued upward till the trend line intercepted the y-axis after 40 years at 0.56C. That has not been the case.
UAH is using the 0.14C/decade trend on the data only but they explain the context in the 33 year report. They explain the aerosol cooling over the first 18 years, they explain the change to true warming after the 1998 EN, and the following flat trend.
The IPCC corroborated 15 years of the flat trend. However, UAH must scientifically supply the trend of the data which alarmists have pounced on as proof of anthropogenic warming.
ps. the bean-counters are not a reference to UAH or the graph on this site. It’s a reference to layman statisticians who input UAH data to their Excel spreadsheets, oblivious to the conditions underlying the data they blindly plug into their calculators.
who is this grobertson guy? trends are calculated, not derived by eye. how can someone not know this?
& without aerosol cooling, uah global warming would be even higher.
He likes his PRATTs, for example that base lines are the gold standard for “true warming” (they are arbitrary).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
“continued upward till the trend line intercepted the y-axis ”
Very sciency with ‘intercept the y-axis,’ but seems confused on which axis that is.
Gordo completely fails to understand “baseline” and what the trend means. The baseline is calculated as the average over some “base period, which is 1981-2010 for the UAH data. The fact that there are more data points below the average in the beginning of the record and more above later just tells anyone who’s listening that there warming going on. The trend calculation does not rely on the baseline in regard and the trend is the important variable, not this month’s particular value above (or below) the baseline.
Moron.
I didn’t get such a far reaching speculation as you did Swanson from Gordon’s comments.
A baseline should be something real like a climate equilibrium, not some point in time where it started allegedly just started warming. We don’t even know if that’s the case or not.
If I embrace mainstream climate science concepts of feedbacks proceeding for centuries after a climate change, I can easily make sense of the idea that warming actually started at the beginning of the 18th century. The advance of glaciers continued for another 150 years after thermometers started rising slowing the warming via radiative albedo feedbacks. However, eventually the system momentum caught up glacial advance slowed and the glaciers began to melt accelerating warming. Fits mainstream science projections on albedo feedbacks quite well and does it in a more pure manner as its not pointing primarily at sea ice changes which may not have positive feedback. The glaciers though would seem to be far more likely to represent positive feedback.
So Gordon seems right on the mark calling out baselines on dates alone.
The World Meteorological Congress, WMO’s top decision-making body on Standards, approved a resolution that WMO will update the climatological Standard Normals for operational purposes every 10 years and will use 1981-2010 as the current base period. However, it will retain 1961-1990 as the historical base period for the sake of supporting long-term climate change assessments.
“In a world in which the climate is changing rapidly, we need to update the climate normals more frequently than we did in the past to keep them useful,” said Thomas C. Peterson, President of the WMO Commission for Climatology and Principal Scientist of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
https://tinyurl.com/yczsc7ew
Svante says:
‘In a world in which the climate is changing rapidly, we need to update the climate normals more frequently than we did in the past to keep them useful,’
==========================
Yep lacking a baseline that describes the world as ideal and at equilibrium is a real bitch!
Svante, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the report.
The increase of the linear warming to 0.14 is interesting, but we are at a local maximum. It may slightly decrease if the temperature stays lower for some time (what I expect).
Is it too early to say the pause is back? We are at the same temperature as early 1999.
It is the opposite of “the pause”. The trend since 2008 is 0.4 per decade. That is twelve years of super warming.
tim…”It is the opposite of the pause. The trend since 2008 is 0.4 per decade. That is twelve years of super warming”.
Even the alarmist IPCC declared a flat trend from 1998 – 2012. How do you manage a 0.4C/decade trend from 2008 when it’s in the middle of a flat trend? If you look at the UAH data, the flat trend carried on till 2015. Any claim of a 0.4c/decade trend has to begin at 2015 then take into account the negative trend after 2016.
GR
Please quote the IPCC saying this. They had better say “flat trend” or “zero trend”. If not, you are embellishing – as usual.
There is generally a linear trend combined with “iregullary regular” 3.6-year wave. The current downward trend comes a little bit sooner than I expected. There are similar shorter cycles in the history but I do not feel sure that the temperature does not turn up again for some limited time.
Your “iregullary regular” cycle is the El Nino/La Nina cycle. Models are predicting La Nina is coming, but the models aren’t always correct.
Forecasts are particularly uncertain during SH Autumn (NH Spring). ENSO neutral is the near term prediction, and beyond that is too uncertain.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
No one should take any notice of BOM their forecasting is appalling because they over ride everything from a climate model which gives the wrong answer. In the case of weather they would be better off saying the weather tomorrow will be the same as today, for one year out they would be better saying it will be the same as last year, and for the still longer out there is an 10-11 year cycle, a 50-60 year cycle and an 100-120 year cycle.
How do you think JMA and NOAA’s methods of ENSO forecasting compares with BoM? Who do you think has a superior method, and why? Which of the 3 has the best forecasting record, do you think?
I like to tease the trendies by bringing up the fact that the anomaly is the same at certain points as the wave cycles. Kind of like a broken watch being right twice a day.
The thing about trends is they wander all over the place depend on what endpoints one cherry picks. But it is an unwavering fact that the average temperature last month is the same as it was on the down side of the El Nino in 1999. It doesn’t matter what the temperatures have been in between, because no one knows what the temperatures will be going forward.
Yes start and end points matter, except when the sample size is so large that it makes barely a difference if you add another month or year, even an outlier.
The error with a lot of prognostication on linear temperature trends is that the time period is too short. The other fault is a lack of concession to statistical significance, and what it really means. EG, if a trend fails statistical significance, that doesn’t mean there is no trend. Proving the failing to disprove the null hypothesis doesn’t mean that the null hypothesis is then true.
Sloppy edit – should be:
Failing to disprove the null hypothesis doesn’t mean that the null hypothesis is then true.
So after that exposition, what will be the trend starting now going forward?
There’s no trend worth talking about unless is multidecadal.
Over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer,
Faith.
Nope, physics.
Nope, faith.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Exactly, faith that computations such as these, and the reasoning behind them, is correct.
Or
“faith that computations such as these, and the reasoning behind them” are totally wrong, without having any clue what they mean..
As usual, the lame-brain critics think they know better than qualified ‘skeptics’ like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Senior. Apparently these experts on atmospheric physics, despite being strong critics of the IPCC and ‘alarmism’, lack the insight that armchair ‘skeptics’ have cobbled together on blogs.
The arrogance of people like DREMT is breathtaking. Perhaps it’s a measure of their ignornace. How else do they manage to so completely fool themselves?
barry says:
May 8, 2020 at 7:06 PM
As usual, the lame-brain critics think they know better than qualified skeptics like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Senior. Apparently these experts on atmospheric physics, despite being strong critics of the IPCC and alarmism, lack the insight that armchair skeptics have cobbled together on blogs.
——————-
And since you didn’t put yourself on that list means all you do is copy what people in authority say. Several of the leading scientists considered to be skeptics or deniers by the blind believers concede the case for multi-layered greenhouse effects isn’t at all described in physics. Its instead simply intuitively believed as is in seems perfectly plausible without having a described process of taking heat ostensibly trapped (by an unnatural concept of a static atmosphere) high in the atmosphere back to the surface to warm it. Sort of a 50,000 foot leap of faith.
But people have definitely believed, including scientists, far wilder things. And in fact those same scientists remain concerned that life on the planet will not evolve fast enough to keep up. . . .which includes evolving from those scientists who have tended to believe in some pretty wild stuff.
Gee look at the response from the government putting in a few dollars in the desert to investigate UFOs, it bred generations of true believers.
Actually getting a bit into psychology, the average guy who doesn’t believe he is too smart actually is smarter than somebody who believes he is smart. Why? Because he can see the truth.
Myself, I am not smart; but it does seem to me to be logical we should be spending our resources less on climate and more on pandemic responses. And no doubt that will be laughed at by the money grows on trees crowd.
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Except DREMT is the one expressing absolute certainty, absolute FAITH that there is no GHE, regardless of what science has found.
Remember?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-462550
The force of hypocrisy is strong with this one.
#2
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Please repeat your post, but louder, since no one read it the first two times.
#3
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Still not loud enough. No one’s paying attention. Maybe try some original content..
#4
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Chic,
You do know how to calculate the trend using all of the data instead of cherry picking two points, don’t you?
bobd …”You do know how to calculate the trend using all of the data instead of cherry picking two points, dont you?”
You certainly don’t. so why are you asking chic?
Yeah I do, and have had to do it by hand to validate analytical equipment.
It’s 19th century stuff, you should be good to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares
I didn’t calculate a trend, because trends don’t cause temperatures to be what they are.
Gawd that’s effing brilliant!
The pause was a trend without statistical significance, likewise comparing two point in time tells you very little about the trend.
I could eyeball Feb 2012 to Feb 2020 and conclude that the world is burning up.
But the trend for that period does not exclude 0 as a trend so it does not provide great information.
“I didnt calculate a trend, because trends dont cause temperatures to be what they are.”
But they used to test model predictions/projections. I would think you would want to do that.
Natural trends come in any length. We have some idea of what may cause some of them. But to understand new causes of trends its usually advisable to understand old causes or you are apt to get a bit mixed up. . . .like an old man who keeps forgetting stuff.
Chic Bowdrie
” Is it too early to say the pause is back? ”
The trend from January 1999 till April 2020:
0.16 ± 0.02 C / decade
The trend from January 2009 till April 2020:
0.34 ± 0.04 C / decade
What kind of ‘pause’ do you exactly mean?
Rgds
J.-P. D.
The one he asked about?
binny…”The trend from January 1999 till April 2020:
0.16 0.02 C / decade
The trend from January 2009 till April 2020:
0.34 0.04 C / decade”
****
It would be nice if you’d put away your Excel spreadsheet and ‘LOOK’ at what has been going on. There was a flat trend from 1999 – 2015 and it is ingenuous to claim a 0.16C trend from 1999 or a 0.4C trend since 2008.
You really don’t understand statistics and where they apply.
“looking” doesn’t replace calculating
Robertson
You are the dumbest, most ignorant and most pretentious person.
Stop your stupid denial of evidence!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
May 2, 2020 at 2:12 AM
Robertson
You are the dumbest, most ignorant and most pretentious person.
Stop your stupid denial of evidence!
———————
what evidence?
Sorry, No warming from 1980-1997
https://i.postimg.cc/fyv8vcRh/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png
No warming from 2001-2015
https://i.postimg.cc/SxQy4C6M/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png
Having to rely on El Nino events to create a trend is just really bad propaganda non-science.
Why do you do it then?
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Ok Spike55, want to remove ENSO effects without bias?
Here’s what you get for RSS.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded1_12month_low-pass_box.png
FYI, this is done by correlating RSS to nino3.4 shifted by 4 months, then creating a new series with correlated portion removed.
Notice 1991-1996 dip period of volcano is not corrected, but it could be.
Nate: I realize that RSS probably went from you most hated temperature service to one of your favorites after the big adjustment.
But bottom line is while RSS offers up an alternative reality in satellite temperature recording it is largely based upon climate modeling to provide for satellite drift. Thats fine and Roy is good with it though he prefers the UAH method of relying on improvements in satellite technology (Cadillac quality).
But what arises out of RSS using climate models to adjust their temperature record makes them less qualified as a means of vetting the climate models and more particularly explanations for model inaccuracies. Most of the surface records have traveled this route with climate model sea level rise having downstream effects on ocean temperatures. Now none of that means the records are wrong, it only means one cannot consider them independent for the purpose of vetting what is really happening with heat accumulation on our planet. Politics is always pushing for a single mind set for obvious reasons. Science is supposed to rise above that.
“But what arises out of RSS using climate models to adjust their temperature record makes them less qualified as a means of vetting the climate models and more particularly explanations for model inaccuracies. ”
Youre eating up propaganda on denialist blogs.
Totally wrong description of what theve done.
You’re not qualified to judge that RSS is ‘less qualified’.
But that never stops you.
RSSv4 does not use a climate or global circulation model to make adjustments.
RSSv3 did. The academic community criticized the method so they changed it. The v4 method says that the v3 method was underestimating the warming.
hmmmmm, you don’t think academic criticism and matching to model output had anything to do with the decision to rely on out-of-date technology?
bill,
First…I think you’re playing too loose with the term “model”. RSSv4 still uses a model for the diurnal correction just as UAH uses a model to make the same correction. It’s just that RSSv4 uses a different kind of model as compared to RSSv3. Remember…a model is a collection of rules, procedures, and algorithms which provides useful insights about the nature of reality. It doesn’t have to be a GCM.
Second…RSSv3 was not matching to the global circulation model output. It was using the GCM computed diurnal trajectory at each grid cell to estimate the correction factor.
Third…I’m not sure what is out-of-date here. The criticism wasn’t that RSSv3 was using out-of-date technology. The criticism was that the approach RSS took at the time was thought to have substituded one bias for another. They listened to the community and changed their approach.
Let us add for the dumbest that any spreadsheet will show us, for 1999-2015, a UAH6.0 LT trend of
0.06 ± 0.02 C / decade. Low for sure! But flat??
The flat trend in fact is rather for 1998-2015:
-0.01 ± 0.02 C / decade.
Why this? Simply because the period now includes all anomalies since January 1998, what lets the period start with very high values, and thus reduce the trend.
The inverse would happen if, while starting with 1999, I would include the year 2016, containing the highest anomalies since December 1978, what increases the trend, which then becomes
0.13 ± 0.02 C / decade.
But all these trends can’t invalidate those computed for the periods since 1999 resp. 2009.
Unlike Robertson, a spreadsheet doesn’t do eye-balling and guessing.
It simply computes trends according to theories developed by Gauss 200 years ago… and used by Roy Spencer as well.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
“What kind of pause do you exactly mean?”
I know the trend analysis is important to you and others. I was hinting at the possibility it is a meaningless exercise, because a trend doesn’t know the future, does it?
Chic Bowdrie
” … because a trend doesn’t know the future, does it? ”
I’m afraid you can’t imagine how much trends are used worldwide in many disciplines to compute estimates for the immediate future.
I don’t mean polynomials nor running means, let alone these toy-like linear trends.
Maybe you go just a tiny bit into medicine stats?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.22.20075705v1.full.pdf
Might help.
J.-P. D.
Chic,
Statistical models are used ubiquitously in nearly all disciplines of science to predict the future.
The medical field and quantum mechanics are examples of disciplines that are almost entirely reliant on statistical models to predict outcomes over large populations.
And although a linear/exponential regression is but a trivial statistical model it is certainly better at predicting the future than persistence, random guesses, etc.
Has a century-long trend ever predicted a future century-long trend correctly? How many 30-year trends predicted a future 30-year trend?
bdgwx says:
Chic,
Statistical models are used ubiquitously in nearly all disciplines of science to predict the future.
The medical field and quantum mechanics are examples of disciplines that are almost entirely reliant on statistical models to predict outcomes over large populations.
And although a linear/exponential regression is but a trivial statistical model it is certainly better at predicting the future than persistence, random guesses, etc.
——————————————
The medical field observes many outcomes before approving a medication or medical treatment bdgwx.
Repetitive validating observations are necessary before you bet the farm on it.
Since climate science isn’t yet into any form of repetitive validation. . . .even Richard Lindzen suggests they pull the plug on the entire exercise and instead focus on primary research.
To give a parallel to the modeling exercise its like real estate investors investing in developments. They use models, observe a steady increase in absorp-tion and prices, and double/triple/quadruple down on their efforts to make money. Thats why nearly 100% of major real estate investors have declared bankruptcy at some point in time.
Hi bohous,
I believe the length of this 3.6 wave is very typical. Can you see my post here?
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3176979828987885/?d=n
Note the 3.6 year cycle is 1/3rd of a solar cycle. Not only are we headed for the down beat of the 3.6 year cycle, but we are also headed for the down beat of the 11 year cycle which occurs approximately 3.6 years offset from the solar minimum. The 11 year cycle is not enough to explain the linear trend you observed. In actuality, the tropics have a very complex 42 year cycle as well, or 4 solar cycles. The amplitude of each part of the 3 wave pattern that occurs each 11 years can be predicted. The first wave I’ve assigned red, the 2nd green, third blue. They follow a pattern like this: low, mid, high, mid, low. Blue is the strongest wave. Red is 3.6 years offset from it. Green is offset by 1 2/3rds solar cycle. We are actually coming off of blue low right now. Next is red low which is the weakest wave. Using this pattern, we can predict that the 42 year cycle will bottom in approximately 12-13 years.
Not coincidentally, the 60 year cycle is also getting ready to drop. It was the aligned 60 and 42 year cycles that caused the modern maximum in the first place.
I confirmed this low / mid / high / mid / low pattern goes back to the 1800s using HADSTT3 data.
You can observe the 60 year cycle with the greatest clarity in the AMO.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3130071703678698/?d=n
beautiful, perfect example of numerology in its purest sense
Haha – indeed, that is exactly what it is: +1
john nash would be envious
Not sure what that is meant to mean.
Just David being David.
What is the global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly? How is it calculated and is it a meaning statistical measure?
Joel Brown
A layman’s (!) opinion: UAH data for one year is represented by 12 monthly grids of 72 latitude bands, each containing 144 longitude cells. The 3 northernmost and southernmost latitude bands in the grids do not contain valuable data.
For each cell, the monthly average for the reference period (currently 1981-2010) is computed, and the monthly cell anomalies are obtained by subtracting this monthly average from the absolute data.
Then the global monthly anomalies are computed by averaging all cells in each latitude band, and finally performing a cosine-weighting over all latitude bands.
Anomaly data for e.g. the year 2019:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2019_6.0
Monthly cell averages for the reference period:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
AFAIK the original, absolute temperatures are not visible in the directory.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Lower tropospheric temperatures are derived from measuring the intensity of microwave radiance of oxygen molecules by instruments on board satellites looking Earthward. Satellites scan the globe and get near full coverage over a few days. The highest latitudes at the poles are not covered. The radiance measurements are mathematically converted into temperature.
The instruments read very deep swathes of the atmosphere. The lower tropospheric temperature is a swathe about 12 kilometers deep, weighted most strongly at about 3km altitude.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2urzmh
The curve marked TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere) shows what weighting is given to various layers of the atmosphere for the lower tropospheric temperature estimate.
barry…”The curve marked TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere) shows what weighting is given to various layers of the atmosphere for the lower tropospheric temperature estimate”.
Where did you dig up that propaganda? Here’s the AMSU weighting curves by channel:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
Note that 1000 mb is approx 1 atm = surface level. Also note that channels 3,4 and 5 intercept the surface. That means they are capable of measuring oxygen emissions right to the surface.
Which channels are used for TLT, Robertson? Do you actually know? You don’t, do you?
If you can read a URL, you will know where I got the graph from. Jesus, grow a brain. Use it to work out where I got this graph from.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UT-weighting-function.png
Observe what the Lower Troposphere measurement covers – about 12km depth, with strongest weighting at 3km altitude.
I don’t think you have a clue about the details of satellite measurements of global temperature.
barry
When I see Robertson’s blah blah
” That means they are capable of measuring oxygen emissions right to the surface. ”
I get a big laugh.
Roy Spencer has himself explained years ago that between ‘measuring oxygen emissions’ and presenting their transformation into absolute temperatures, there is sometimes a gap.
And the gap here is the ocean: O2 emissions above its surface in the 60 GHz band are subject to extreme bias.
This is the reason why UAH6.0 LT does NOT take surface temperature computations into account.
Unfortunately I forgot to sync Firefox at that time and the link was lost.
Another indication of measurable but useless data is all places in the lower troposphere that are above high altitude surfaces (e.g. the Andes, the Himalaya, the Tibetan Plateau, etc.).
J.-P. D.
barry
A further interesting point concerning measurability vs. usefulness is the difference in handling pole-near latitude bands between UAH6.0 and UAH5.6.
If you look at UAH’s grid data in both contexts, you will see that while UAH6.0’s 2.5-degree grid does not contain valid data for 82.5N-90N or 82.5S-90S, UAH5.6 however did very well.
Please compare e.g.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2016_6.0
with
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltmonamg.2016_5.6
You can see that the grid of the 5.6 revision encompasses the entire sphere from 90N till 90S.
J.-P. D.
Actually, I can’t see 5.6 – it’s not opening wiith regular applications.
But I believe that 5.6 also had the same coverage of the globe. There might be data, but I don’t think it was used. See the figures at the bottom of the 5.6 regional page.
https://tinyurl.com/y92yznkq
Not sure that even they are correct, though. I remember at one point UAH (or RSS) had slightly different coverage over the S Pole as N Pole, one extending to 85, and the other to 82.5. Long time since I’ve seen those figures though.
barry
” See the figures at the bottom of the 5.6 regional page. ”
How funny! May I ask you to have a look at the bottom of the 6.0 regional page?
Huh, ironically the opposite. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the coverage put right on those pages, but I’m very confident that 5.6 did not have complete global coverage.
barry, please stop trolling.
The important thing to note is that the future is unpredictable because we don’t understand the nature of geothermal.
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
It’s Bob Phin again playing the role of his illusory wife.
Minibrain,
And people should care because . . . ?
No one cares about Bob Phin and his alter egos. Good pickup.
Zoe,
Im puzzled with
‘As you can see all of these profiles have the same geothermal heat flux (CF), and all of them produce a very different emergent flux (EF) out of the surface.’
How do you think 96 mW/m^2 can PRODUCE EF >> 96 mW/m^2???
Des, please stop trolling.
zoe…”The important thing to note is that the future is unpredictable because we dont understand the nature of geothermal”.
The alarmist clowns have little ability to comprehend anything more than a few words, so when you talk about issues outside their ken, they react with disdain.
No one knows the cumulative effects of geothermal activity over millions of years. I think that’s especially true for warming of the oceans.
Of course, you were right to claim the 340 watts back-radiation is a scam. It has never been measured and Kiehle-Trenberth admitted they made it up.
Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy are confirming what I’ve thought for a long time. The global mean temperature warms and cools, warms and cools, warms and cools. And over various periods of time. What I find quite peculiar is there are a whole bunch of people who don’t agree with that concept.
By the way, there is a great new documentary film by Michael Moore called “Planet of the Humans.” It is available for free on YouTube. It is about what a farce green energy is. The concluding statement in the film is telling. “The CO2 molecule is not destroying the environment. It is us.”
Dr. Michael Mann has already thrown a conniption fit over it. Many liberals want the film banned!
Rob Mitchell
If the global mean temperature would warm and cool, warm and cool, warm and cool, then the trend over 1979-2020 would be 0.0 C / decade, and not 0.14 C.
The last anomaly below 0 C wrt the mean of 1981-2010 was, if I well do remember, that of March 2012, i.e. about 100 months ago.
It’s as simple as that.
And as simple as you?
binny…”The last anomaly below 0 C wrt the mean of 1981-2010 was, if I well do remember, that of March 2012, i.e. about 100 months ago”.
What Rob is trying to say is that it could very well go back below the baseline, we don’t know. I know that’s something a butt-kisser to authority like you cannot comprehend.
why would
it go back below baseline?
Robertson
You are such an ignorant of simplest facts:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/april2020/202004_bar.png
What does that matter if in a near future a few anomalies go below 0.0 C? What would that change to the trend?
Fact is, Robertson, that we had nearly 100 months above average.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, why do you think global temperature rises and falls should all average out in just the previous 41 years? I don’t think there is any one regular climate period one can pinpoint. There could be a 5 decade warming period followed by a 3 decade cooling one, or vice-versa. You don’t actually think like Bill Nye that there is something unusual about the “rate of warming” during the past 4 decades do you?
the film is full of errors. many have and are pointing these out. you can start here –
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/misinformation-in-planet-of-the-humans/
And if I choose not to?
No one can force you to open up your mind. You are free to choose to ignore information you don’t like.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Gore & Co., those who are devout believers in green energy are the ones most upset with the film. And the reason being is that the film is revealing what goes into producing green energy. The vast majority of the public has no idea about all of the mining that is necessary to produce solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles. They are also not aware that wind and solar requires a backup coal/natural gas plant built to support the renewables. Wind and solar energy fluctuates, and a steady source of energy has to be available to make up for the periods of no wind or no sunshine. This film is an eye-opener for progressives because they’ve always believed renewables will save the planet.
rob…”Dr. Michael Mann has already thrown a conniption fit over it”.
Please don’t call it Dr., it makes it sound like it has a clue about what it is doing. After making an utter fool of itself with the hockey stick nonsense, it got caught making a bigger fool of itself in the Climategate email scandal. Then it offered chauvinist comments about Dr. Judith Curry when she became skeptical of alarmists ppopaganda.
mann just elected to nas
Is Michael “Piltdown” Mann still claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner?
Delighted to report that Dr. Mann has just been elected to the NAS. You can congratulate him on Twitter.
Well Gordo, maybe we should elevate Michael Mann a little bit above the level of “it.”
But I certainly understand your point. The way he behaved during congressional testimony while Dr. Curry was there was an absolute disgrace. Dr. Christy was there as well.
rob…”…there is a great new documentary film by Michael Moore called Planet of the Humans.
It has been banned by youtube, the eco-weenies are having a hysterical reaction over it. Don’t know why. It reveals what we all need to know, that we are so stuck in our belief systems that green energy will save us that we are deluded to the truth that we are seriously overly populated and that our needs are far too great to be sustainable.
The movie also reveals the truth that green energy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and cannot meet the demands of our power grids. So greenies have given their blessing to natural gas and biomass, which replaces coal with trees. That’s right, the greenies think it’s OK to burn trees because they are sustainable!!!
Duh!! If every tree in the US was burned for one year it would barely meet the needs of the US power demand.
https://energynow.ca/2020/04/watch-michael-moores-much-needed-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-looks-at-the-ugly-truths-about-renewable-energy/
Yes, if new technology is not immediately perfect you must give up completely and never fix it.
Reality and the models continue to diverge at an alarming rate. ( Well alarming for solar power makers at least )
how so?
Why do you ask, troll?
i want to know how reality and models
are diverging, of course
https://bit.ly/2yh0qgw
i meant something serious, not a single random uncited figure
Gormless,
Can’t you look it up, troll?
you’re all mouth
got anything useful to say? anything scientific to offer?
Gore & Co is a classic debil who can only judge the chart by who posted it , not by what it contains
What it contains is a pair of lies.
(i) It refers to the 1951-1980 mean, which means they are using GISS data. GISS data shows that 2019 was 0.98C warmer than that mean, not less than 0.6 as the graph shows.
(ii) It says “you should be here”, pointing at the worst-case scenario. It should be highlighting the RANGE between extreme values. +0.98 is right in the middle of that range.
So it turns out that judging the content and judging the poster led to exactly the same conclusion. Go figure.
Eben,
We “should” be at a point somewhere between scenario C and B.
When Hansen’s 1988 model was ran with human emissions that actually occurred the result was nearly indistinguishable from observations.
What does that tell us? The physics programmed into 30 year old models is pretty good and that our assumptions of human behavior are poor.
You need to ask the author of the graph to fix the items Midas pointed out. Once that is done please have him/her present it for further review.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Stevek said: Reality and the models continue to diverge at an alarming rate.
No they don’t.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
bdg…”Stevek said: Reality and the models continue to diverge at an alarming rate.
No they dont”.
Get serious bdg, that paper is co-authored by Gavin Schmidt the mathematician and climate modeler.
grobertson doesnt deserve to lick gavin’s boots
So no criticism of methods or data in the paper, just who was a co-author.
Hmm, that seems to be a recognized fallacy, I wonder if Gordon can recognize the fallacy he is using.
David, blob, please stop trolling.
Due to a small drop of 0.38 C within two months, the zero-relative comparison of the anomalies around the two major El Nino periods (Jan 1997-Apr 2002 vs. Jan 2015-Apr 2020) shows of course a corresponding drop:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11H1Y959how-bVRQLkUW2mV5OyIBty5Ra/view
J.-P. D.
We need some slicers and dicers in here
For more than 10 years I have been plotting the UAH temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index from the Queensland government. The plot imposes a four-month shift between the SOI and temperature.
You can find the plot here: http://www.bryanleyland.co.nz/global-temperature-prediction.html
Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it seems to give a strong indication that the SOI has a considerable influence on world temperatures four months later.
Yes, El Nino and La Nina events affect global average temperature on interannual time scales. But, they do not explain the long-term warming trend.
The Elnino Lanina cycles causes global temperature swings around 1C on 3-5 years scale
The multidecadal oscillations causes the same 1C swings on about 80 years cycles
The UAH data set contains exactly one half of AMO cycle starting from bottom to top peak at present,
https://bit.ly/2VYUdPH
this is why no one considers 3-5 years to be “climate”, but only the average of 30 or more years
Are you totally dense or what ?
Eben
UAH global annual averages for the last decade:
2010 … 0.33
2011 … 0.02
2012 … 0.05
2013 … 0.14
2014 … 0.18
2015 … 0.27
2016 … 0.53
2017 … 0.40
2018 … 0.23
2019 … 0.44
Would you please find me a 1C swing in that data.
So, you got a “cheat” on predicting next month’s global temperature?
Is going to down or up?
So, generally, the Southern Hemisphere is about 1 C colder than Northern Hemisphere. And Southern hemisphere warms Northern Hemisphere.
Or as said, the tropical ocean is heat engine of the world, but tropical ocean warms Northern Hemisphere, more than Southern Hemisphere. Or helps explain how something colder can apparently warm something warmer {the warmer tropical ocean warms both cooler hemispheres, but warms Northern more than Southern hemisphere}.
Why does tropical ocean warm northern Hemisphere more than Southern Hemisphere.
No doubt it complicated. But would say roughly, because, ocean warms land and there is more land in northern hemisphere.
And more interesting question is there variance or factors alter this, so northern hemisphere is warmed less or both hemispheres are more equally warmed by the heat engine of the world?
Bryan…”Correlation doesnt prove causation, but it seems to give a strong indication that the SOI has a considerable influence on world temperatures four months later”.
Thanks for the info Bryan.
how does the soi add heat to the ocean ?
And how does the SOI cause the stratosphere to cool?
David, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
“For more than 10 years I have been plotting the UAH temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index..”
Man ……………get a life!
The trend is now +0.1351 with an error of 0.0068.
The trend line is at +0.33 so this month was 0.05 above the trend line.
Given that we are toeing the line of +0.13 and +0.14 and that the stratosphere has warmed in recent months I expect a drop back to +0.13/decade in the coming months.
This drop follows what I’ve been saying for a long time. All we have seen in recent years is the effect of natural factors such as ENSO pushing up global temperatures. There is no indication that the climate baseline has changed this century.
In April the effect of the ongoing Pacific El Nino and the winter AMO driven Arctic enhancement were both in effect. Next month the Arctic influence will likely fall again. Due to the lag that occurs with El Nino, we will continue to see those effects for a few more months even if it fades away.
My prediction for this month was .40-.45 so we got more cooling than I expected. Next month will probably be in the .30-.35 range.
Overall, if the ENSO returns to neutral we have a chance of returning to the 21st century baseline by September.
Compare the UAH 2001-2019 average to the UAH 1980-1999 average, and get back to be with that comparison. I suspect you won’t perform the calculation because you already know how the result will look.
Midas,
Why would anyone compare periods that are completely different? Most of your first period was during a -AMO while also containing both cooling major volcanic eruptions. The second period was during a +AMO. Did you intend to highlight the key reason why it has warmed?
Don’t you think you need to look for another excuse for the southern hemisphere and the tropics? And why didn’t you factor in the generally negative PDO from 1998 to 2014?
Midas, I see all you have is denial. The PDO usually shows up negative during La Nina events. When this is factored in the PDO was positive from 1976-2006, negative from 2006-2014, and then positive since 2014. What you just said was the PDO has produced a warming influence on global temperature for 80% of the last 40 years.
Thanks again for pointing out that natural factors explain much of the warming.
As I said, the PDO was negative from 1998 to 2014. For the first 19 years of the UAH record it was positive. It has been essentially neutral since then. So eff knows how you came up with that assessment.
Midas, the PDO was “generally” positive until 2006. Sorry, but you don’t get to change the data. And, you also want to ignore the more influential warm cycle, the AMO. Why is that? You appear to be in denial.
indication – ocean heat content increasing steadily year by year
How so?
G&C appears to think that ocean warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 increases. Yet, no evidence exists to support that conjecture. A more scientific view is that oceans have warmed naturally and the atmosphere has simply picked up some of that energy.
In fact, there is evidence that changes in ocean salinity could drive changes in the ocean current speeds which in turn could lead to warming (or cooling). See Thirumalai et al 2019.
there’s no evidence the ocean has warmed
“naturally”. none at all.
gore…”theres no evidence the ocean has warmed
naturally. none at all”.
The oceans have been recovering naturally since the end of the Little Ice Age circa 1850. There was a heck of a lot of ice created on the planet during the LIA from roughly 1400 – 1850. There were enormous glaciers created in the Alps alone. It takes a long time to melt those glaciers given new winter deposits of snow and the oceans cooled significantly during that period.
Cooler oceans = less CO2 in the atmosphere but the IPCC missed that one when they set a baseline of 270 ppmv based on ice cores in Antarctica. Why did they not take samples from ice cores in the Alps where CO2 levels were likely higher.
same – theres no evidence that the ocean has warmed
naturally, or known causative factor that would force it
There is no evidence the ocean has warmed at all. Just the usual dreams.
G&C, did you read the reference I provided you? That is what is known as “evidence”. It may only be a start but it is evidence. What is it with true believers? All you have is denial.
richard…”G&C appears to think that ocean warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 increases. Yet, no evidence exists to support that conjecture. A more scientific view is that oceans have warmed naturally and the atmosphere has simply picked up some of that energy”.
Don’t forget recovery from the Little Ice Age.
there is no physics process known as “recovery”
GR
What factors aided this “recovery”?
In answering, remember that the LIA began centuries before the Maunder minimum.
Gordon,
I agree that there has been 300+ years of warming that cannot be explained by CO2 increases. The reference I provided does hint at one possible cause of this recovery. That is, changes in precipitation in the Amazon/Congo basins leading to ocean salinity changes.
What drove these rainfall changes could be solar related. Changes in the distribution of energy in solar radiation frequencies such as described in Lean 2018 are one possibility.
I always find it interesting that when anything other than man made emissions provide evidence for climate effects, all we see from one specific set of commentators is denial. No interest in real science.
“Overall, if the ENSO returns to neutral we have a chance of returning to the 21st century baseline by September.”
Baseline for UAH6.0 is 1981 to 2010. What is the “21st century baseline?”
barry, please stop trolling.
If that were true, you would expect that my predictions would not be accurate when in fact they have been very accurate. I called the feb peak the top of the 3.6 cycle. Was there anyone else here that predicted that? Go back and check.
Midas you never respond to my data, proposed cycles directly. You just like to through the same tired argument at me. Unqualified, numerology, heres an article, your not the expert. As if this will have any effect on my opinion which is rooted in the study of the actual data.
your opinion is made up in imagined cycles and phases and colors, almost all without any physical basis (except the 11yr cycle)
Go away, troll.
scott r…”Midas you never respond to my data, proposed cycles directly”.
Midas is a classic troll. Ignore it.
SR
What is preventing you from publishing and getting your work peer-reviewed? And not one of those drive-by reviews.
Go away troll!
Go away Mike Flynn!
Des, please stop trolling.
I have no idea why this comment appeared here. Was directed in response to Midas upthread.
My husband helped me get started with youtube comments, but I’ve been going on my own for two years.
I’ve never heard of a male ego doing so much novel work in his wife’s name.
Why wouldn’t he want the credit?
Are you atttacted to me, but don’t want to be or do you doubt female intelligence. What’s the story?
Midas,
My husband helped me get started with youtube comments, but Ive been going on my own for two years.
Ive never heard of a male ego doing so much novel work in his wifes name.
Why wouldnt he want the credit?
Are you atttacted to me, but dont want to be or do you doubt female intelligence. Whats the story?
It has nothing to do with male-female, S4B.
It has to do with the fact that both “individuals” use EXACTLY the same language. And the fact that once “Zoe” appeared, Bob completely vanished.
I can’t make posts below main level. Buggy blog.
“We are at the same temperature as early 1999.”
No we’re not.
1999
Jan 0.06
Feb 0.17
Mar -0.08
Apr 0.01
2020
Jan 0.57
Feb 0.76
Mar 0.48
Apr 0.38
The opening of 2020 was closer to the temperatures at the peak of the 1998 el Nino, and Feb 2020 was warmer than any month in 1998.
1998
Mar 0.47
Apr 0.74
May 0.64
Jun 0.57
Of course, small samples of data points say nothing about the overall trend. The linear trend since January 1999 is 0.16 C/decade.
And this is based on UAH6.0 lower troposphere temperature data, which has the lowest long term trends of all the global temperature data sets.
Lower bound and upper bound. Even going with lower, which is likely more accurate, until upper is proven means a warming climate likely above chance.
Sorry Barry,
until you factor out natural climate factors quoting comparison numbers is completely useless. In 1998 we had the super El Nino, in 2020 we have the ice effects of the +AMO, a weak El Nino and the dissipation of the Pacific blob.
You then talk about a “trend” starting with a 3 year La Nina and ending with a period that contains El Nino conditions for 6 out of 7 years. Did you really mean to do something so silly? Did you really think you were going to influence anyone with that nonsense?
Of course, living in denial of natural climate factors is common among a certain set of commentators.
“until you factor out natural climate factors quoting comparison numbers is completely useless”
Be sure to mention that to Scott R, who made the comparison that I replied to. And which he got wrong, which was the point of my reply.
All the periods were based on Scott’s choices. I trust you will enlighten him with your wisdom.
barry, please stop trolling.
For me, the UAH L. Trop is the best data to understand global warming because it is not tied to any climate model and satellites are better than the trash thermometers that have some el nino and not others. Also, it is apparent warming is a step function defined with excursions at major El Nino events and thus I hypothesize another long hiatus before the next step. It would be exciting if the next step were to be negative (cooling) or minimal (hiatus).
In literature and popular culture the hysteria for climate is falling apart. Scientists are pointing out IPCC has stepped to far by adjusting sensitivity up in new models (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0764-6), Michael Moore and Gibbs turned on the left in Planet of the Humans, which is a positive because I dont agree with their anti capitalism views, but I have real respect for them being consistent. Criticism from within always has more power.
I dont believe we can drift into a new dark age mostly because there are to many channels for free speach and distribution of power to citizens to close them all down. This virus will teach us to be more cautious onward of blindly following left media cries of a catastrophe and realising the reaction to the cries can be worse than the actual risk.
I don’t think UAH is the best. They are all estimates with strengths and weaknesses (using modeling doesn’t automatically confer weakness), abd UAH seems to be the biggest outlier. UAH data set has undergone the most significant changes out of all the major data sets (perhaps equalled by RSS in its latest revision). So non-modeling has not helped it have better data than the rest, otherwise those revisions should be very minor, not the most profound of all others.
Yea I dont disagree. I think we all are entitled to choose our own data.
Barry, so you are a fan of leaving known errors in data? That is what you just told us. The UAH changes were to specific known orbital problems. Why would you want to leave in these kinds of known problems? Oh right, because it supports what you want to believe.
Face-palm.
“I think we all are entitled to choose our own data.”
Oh yes, whatever takes your fancy.
“Barry, so you are a fan of leaving known errors in data? That is what you just told us.”
Another brainless comment. I wrote what I wrote, not what you wrote.
Dunces begone.
Barry, your denial does not change the facts. You complained about the changes to the UAH data which were corrections for KNOWN problems. Yes, you wrote pure nonsense.
“You complained about the changes to the UAH data…”
No. I did not.
You just wrote pure nonsense. You can’t keep a conversation striaght in your head.
barry, please stop trolling.
For me, the UAH L. Trop is the best data to understand global warming because it is not tied to any climate model
There are many datasets that are not coupled with GCM models. Note that I’m assuming by “climate model” or you mean global circulation model.
and satellites are better than the trash thermometers
Can you provide us the RMS error on the monthly anomalies from UAH and compare it to those from traditional surface datasets, balloon datasets, and reanalysis datasets?
I’m not saying that error bars (precision) are the differences that swing me- open to hearing the answer from you though and more importantly why do error bars matter?
Also, I can describe the differences in accuracy between data types from memory so that any inconsistent understanding I have can be pointed out by you. It is always good to test the basis of an interpretation. 1. RSS diurnal adjustments are tied to a GCM but for the most part is very similar to UAH that adjusted independently of GCM. I have no issue with either but after last adjustments RSS went up, UAH went down. Will RSS now require an additional adjustment up because the GCM from IPCC increased sensitivity? 2. RSS or UAH vs balloons. Balloons are excellent precise calibration but not global view. Last I checked UAH was slightly better match but insignificant differences. 2.5. I am not familiar with the analysis outcomes other than what I read here on this page. 3. Thermometer data has been so heavily massaged since I have followed it. There was the boat correction adding warming to the trend by cooling pre 1950 oceans, then several more adjustments up for the trend including the Karl et al that removed 97 98 el nino in an attempt to add deep warming, but it is now looking internally inconsistent after the next big 16 17 el nino showed up in the data. This is not ideal to me and suggests the researchers adjusted incorrectly. 4. You forgot glacial ice extent (and eustacy). Very low precision but better accuracy for global warming as a proxy. It shows the 1940s warming, 1970s cooling, that bust thermometer global temperature data. It also shows the medieval warming busting hockey stick from one version of the tree ring interpretation. Glaciers and sea level indicate sea level was 6m to 8m higher just 125k yr ago at only 295 ppm CO2, likely busting high end GCM estimates and suggesting moderate to low climate sensitivity to CO2 are plausible. If earth was highly sensitive to CO2 then we would be seeing faster warming, rather than a gradual moderate increase observed in RSS and UAH. The ecstatic data provide a maximum constraint on climate sensitivity.
1. RSS used to use GCMs for diurnal corrections. They use a different technique now.
2. RSS is a better match to balloon datasets. https://tinyurl.com/v5ux75g
3. All data is “messaged”. UAH doesn’t even use thermometers. They have to use a model to first map microwave emissions to temperatures. Then they have to correct for certain biases and homogenize the data to produce a global mean. If “messaging” is offensive to you then you probably shouldn’t be relying on UAH. Regarding Karl…you should understand that his “messaging” actually works to reduce the global warming trend overall. Nevermind, that he is but one of many that publish such datasets. So if “messaging” is offensive to you then you’re going to have to live with the fact that the warming is more than is being officially reported.
4. This is a topic for another line of discussion. I don’t see how it is relevant to measuring the global mean temperature today.
Weren’t all the historical surface data sets that used thermometers
“adjusted” because they were supposedly unreliable? It doesn’t matter what the instrument is. If it doesn’t fit your agenda there will be something wrong with it.
Yes. All reputable surface station datasets that publish a global mean surface temperature for climate research make adjustments to produce a better result. Actually all datasets regardless of type make adjustments. This includes reanalysis, balloon, satellite, etc.
This is a good thing. You want datasets like UAH or whatever to make adjustments to fix bugs, problems with methodology, for quality control, instrument bias correction, urban heat island, homogenization, etc.
Aaron S
” 3. Thermometer data has been so heavily massaged since I have followed it. ”
Maybe you show some valuable sources (i.e. NOT WUWT, hockeyschtick, Gosselin, let alone Goddard).
” You forgot glacial ice extent (and eustacy). Very low precision but better accuracy for global warming as a proxy. It shows the 1940s warming, 1970s cooling, that bust thermometer global temperature data. ”
Here too, some sources would be interesting.
1. A graph showing global sea ice (Arctic + Antarctic, extent + area) out of the HadISST1 data set, starting in 1950:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLBjhIqMG9pjCexciUIVWQox8x96eT1m/view
2. A graph showing PMSL tide gauge sea levels, starting in 1880:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dNTLShsJp2U9aBHuU3h4OL5tK32of9pg/view
There will be somewhere data showing how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets behaved prior to the satellite era, but it is certainly in NetCDF format, not in ASCII. So I can’t show it here.
Where do you see in such data anything supporting your claim?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
On the Arctic/ Antarctic graph which color is which? Antarctic is mislabeled as red I believe but I think I understand and just want to confirm. Do you have the citations for each trend you shared? I’d love to see why the 1940s are deleted from the glacial ice trends because it is unfortunately not there and is the relevant period to my statement (especially given the symmetrical smoothing eliminates most of the 1950s data into one data point without a trend). It very well maybe just the start of both data sets started in the 50s, but it is an interesting point to start a data set so my gut tells me to explore more.
I definitely need to know more about the tide data too becuase tode trends are highly vulnerable to subsidence trends particularly in areas with modified alluvial drainage by engineers to control flooding that create meters of subsidence via reduction of overbank fine alluvial sediments. New Orleans and Mississippi River is an invalid set of data (as is most of Europe). The Mississippi Delta is a bird foot geometry for the reason it should have avulsed to fill in the subsidence gap years ago but Army core has prevented that. So it is easy to select tide data that confirms a narrative. Satellite tide data is the most relevant.
I am not familiar with the ice extent curves you cited, but I do see the 70s cooling as a surge in red (assumed arctic) and a lag before the blue (assumed Antarctic) sea ice extent growing. It will be interesting to see if the Antarctic cooling last decade is followed by an arctic ice growth in the next few years with a flip flop of lead an lag response.
Final point, shouldn’t sea ice highly correlate with temperatures? Especially if you weight Arctic Antarctic trends based on ice volume.
Interesting that the trend has finally ticked up above 0.13C/decade. I had been seeing 0.18C/decade from other series for a long time now, and wonder a little at the inconsistency. Still do, of course, but this reduces it a little.
In other news, the UK just went 18 days without coal being used for electricity generation, another record.
Also, I am delighted to report that Dr. Michael Mann has just been elected to the NAS. You can all congratulate him on Twitter. It is heartening that his decades-long contribution to such an important science is being recognised so clearly.
Unfortunately, climatology is as much a science as astrology. Its practitioners just make stuff up as they go along. Try finding climate forcings or climate sensitivity in a real physics textbook.
You can find hundreds of papers mentioning both climate forcings and climate sensitivity on real physics journal sites, not to mention the flagship journals “Nature” and “Science”. I might add that I also learned about the greenhouse effect and the adiabatic lapse rate in science classes during what American persons would call “high school”. During the 1970s.
I’m sure there are very basic reasons why the warming rates in different series would be different. I’ve just not been keeping fresh for many months and don’t like to make claims of excess precision. There are real scientists at the IPCC and now the NAS who do this sort of thing, after all.
It only takes seconds to think up a physical explanation if you put your mind to it, rather than trying to come up with unfounded accusations to throw at scientists. For instance, altitude: An atmosphere warming due to GHGs will necessarily be cooling at its upper extremes, so a warming trend will change at altitude until it inverts to a cooling trend. Mystery solved, and not a tinfoil hat in sight. See how easy?
So you agree that real physics textbooks do not contain the wondrous forcings or sensitivities? Any fool can publish in journals. Its called pay to publish. Nothing to do with advancing science in many cases! Climate science is as scientific as political science or social science.
“So you agree that real physics textbooks do not contain the wondrous forcings or sensitivities?”
Obviously not. I said they DID contain information about the same concepts in the 1970s. If that’s your idea of a valid inference it’s no wonder you have to resort to character assassination in lieu of argument.
“Any fool can publish in journals.”
Then you would seem eminently qualified. So go on and do so.
“Climate science is as scientific as political science or social science.”
Try telling the NAS. Or any high-school physics student. And no, I won’t take your word over theirs.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
The difference is not surprising. UAH measures temperature of the loswer atmosphere about 12km in height, surface records are of a band about 2 metres above ground level. Why would these different quantities perfectly match? And the processes to dervie a global average temperature are very, very different. Even UAH and RSS (both lower trop measurements) have different methods, if mostly the same data.
It’s not inconsistency. There is no benchmark.
Barry, have you ever heard of the adiabatic lapse rate? That is the physics that ties the lower Troposphere to the surface. Over an entire globe is will balance out any “inconsistency”.
Now add in that climate models tell us this part of the atmosphere should warm first and the only consistency is your denial of science.
Very little of what you write in reply to me has much to do with what I write. You seem to be fixated on ideas that you use other people’s comments to introduce. Have you been playing in the climate blogs again, little one?
Nothing about the adiabatic lapse rate forces tropospheric temps to perfectly mirror surface temps. For instance, there are fewer clouds 2 meters above the surface of the Earth. The surface temps are also more affected by surface albedo than the middle of the troposphere is. Global coverage between satellite and surface is different. Even the 2 satellite data sets have slightly different coverage. The list goes on. That’s even before we get to the very different methodologies, and neither you nor I are learned enough to determine which is better. For a start, you don’t know how UAH6.0 is derived – not to any granular understanding that would give you the insight to make a call. Of course, you would need a similarly granular understanding of how the other data sets are put together in order to make a cogent comparison. “They don’t use models” is certainly not a detailed comprehension of how the data is assembled to make a global temperature average.
People who prefer one data set over another are not at all skeptical, and the choice of UAH for AGW critics is lamely obvious.
barry, please stop trolling.
Barry, more of your typical unscientific denial. You tried to take local effects and claim they are global. Silly nonsense at best.
What’s obvious is you don’t want to accept you have been wrong for years.
“You tried to take local effects and claim they are global.”
Whaaaaat??
I said nothing like this. Are you smoking weed?
How ’bout them bristlecone pine tree rings? Or that brilliant use of Principal Components Analysis?
Yessir, that ol’ Nobel Prize winner, Michael “Piltdown” Mann has sure made a real contribution to the pseudoscience of climastrology.
So much so that he has just been elected to the NAS. Thank you for drawing attention to an opportunity to repeat this. If you think your contribution to science to exceed that of Dr. Mann then I suggest you take it up with his fellow Academy members.
Good to know you’re a fan of scientific fraud.
McIntyre and McKittrick caught Michael “Piltdown” Mann with his science pants around his ankles.
The MBH Hockey Stick was bogus.
“Piltdown” Mann was either hopelessly incompetent or a fraud.
The MBH98 temperature reconstruction is a real phenomenon. It has been corroborated many times by independent researchers and even different (non-dendrochronology) lines of evidence. M&M’s critique of MBH98 was flawed. The flaws were caught in peer review when submitted to a reputable journal, but M&M declined to fix them. You can read more about the technical details here. https://tinyurl.com/latmy8
M&M succeding in getting a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005, the year after that realclimate article.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
This paper was itself flawed, and MBH 98 and partuclarly 99 have subsequently been broadly corroborated by many other reconstructions by other groups using different proxies.
The ‘hockeystick’ canard is a zombie argument that no amount of head shots seems to put down.
Here are 33 papers on temperature reconstructions of the last 600 to 2000 years, including MBH, M&M and many more. First paper is from 1993, the most recent from 2019. Anyone can wise up if they have the patience.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
There are other reconstructions as well:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/papers-on-temperature-reconstructions-from-boreholes/
“The hockeystick canard is a zombie argument that no amount of head shots seems to put down.”
Barry you do have a way with words…sums it up nicely.
“Good to know youre a fan of scientific fraud.”
Good to know you’re a fan of making stuff up to smear scientists who are now members of the NAS in recognition of their contributions.
“McIntyre and McKittrick caught Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann with his science pants around his ankles.”
Strangely, the NAS – the leading scientific body of the nation – seem to agree with me that it is McIntyre and McKittrick who are walking around tackle-out. YOU might have blind faith in a pair of frauds who are trying to smear a real scientist, but the nation’s leading scientists clearly do not. And as they have just elected Dr. Mann to their number I’d say your ideological convenience can safely be ignored.
So, again, take it up with the NAS. Or any of the dozens of teams who have used a score of lines of evidence to corroborate his work.
Actually, that’s not a bad yardstick. Let’s see you criticise EVEN ONE of the other proxy series that independently show the hockey stick shape without mentioning Dr. Mann’s name, if you think there’s any substance to your drivel.
“The MBH Hockey Stick was bogus.”
You are bogus. The hockey stick has been confirmed to the point that trying to smear one mann to make it go away is not merely dishonest but futile.
bdgwx, barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.
John Garrett
” Or that brilliant use of Principal Components Analysis? ”
Who are you to discredit Mann when using PCA?
Did you discredit Zharkova as well, who based her solar dynamo and GSM thing on the same PCA method?
*
” McIntyre and McKittrick caught Michael Piltdown Mann with his science pants around his ankles. ”
You can insult Mann as long as you want; but the two have been contradicted years ago by at least 5 different groups.
But that you prefer to keep silent about, hu?
My guess: you don’t understand even 0.5 % of that discussion.
J.-P. D.
“…In other news, the UK just went 18 days without coal being used for electricity generation, another record…”
Yeah, amidst warnings of blackouts and service disruptions !!
Wonderful!
Warnings by whom? You? Show me an actual blackout if you expect to be taken seriously.
As for “service disruptions”, what’s the weather like on your planet? People down here haven’t been getting to work much.
Here is Australia having blackouts imposed because they’ve really drunk the ‘green’ energy koolaid. You know, the stuff Michael Moore was complaining about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DxZ1f_YzXQ
Sky “News” … hahaha.
John is correct. One warning comes from the National Grid itself, as reported in the Times. Headline: “Scoop: National Grid warns that Britain could be at risk of blackouts on Friday.” That would be next Friday (8th May).
h/t Paul Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Jim Ross
No idea what happens in Giant Britain or in down under…
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2019/Public-net-electricity-generation-in-germany-2019.html
We should be a lot farer than the current numbers show, but… one has to be patient.
That tweet of a screenshot yields a text which can be traced to a Murdoch rag known as “The Times”, once a decent paper. The full text is behind a paywall, but the accessible portion states:
“Britain could be at risk of blackouts as extremely low energy demand threatens to leave the electricity grid overwhelmed by surplus power.
“National Grid asked the regulator yesterday for emergency powers to switch off solar and wind farms to prevent the grid from being swamped on the May 8 bank holiday, when demand is expected to be especially low.”
So no, based on that source, John is not “right” in any useful sense. National Grid issued no such warning; it asked for the powers to AVERT the possibility of blackouts. Nor is the fact of excess power from renewables particularly convenient to the denialist agenda in the first place: When seeking to claim that a climate disaster cannot be imminent because the measures needed to prevent it cannot provide enough capacity to support leisure activities, the danger that those measures might flood the grid with excess power is NOT the kind of argument you need.
Pro tip, Jim. Link to the article you are pointing people to, not just the home page. The top article drops away when the next one is posted, and few people will bother to trawl the site for your reference.
I bothered, and look what the article says:
“National Grid asked the regulator yesterday for emergency powers to switch off solar and wind farms to prevent the grid from being swamped on the May 8 bank holiday, when demand is expected to be especially low.”
So wind and solar might have put too much power to the grid in a low demand period.
What was your point, again?
“Britain could be at risk of blackouts as extremely low energy demand threatens to leave the electricity grid overwhelmed by surplus power.”
Not sure this fits the desired narrative that renewables cant provide enough reliable power….
Right now, wind is providing 2.21% of UK demand (gasp). Not sure that fits your narrative of “reliable” power. Thank goodness we still have significant CCGT deliverability (currently 46.8% of demand).
Thank science it wasn’t needed for 18 days running. And that’s just the most recent, record, contiguous time-period.
You’re already reduced to bleating about “warnings” that are, of course, not realised. (Although we had regular blackouts in my childhood when coal ruled the game, and they still happen routinely in regions threatened by natural disasters like tropical storms.) What are you going to fall back on in a few years when coal rarely needs cycling up at all?
“Right now, wind is providing 2.21% of UK demand (gasp).”
And renewables? Or did you think the shift of goalposts wouldn’t be noticed?
Not sure where you are getting that 2.2% Jim,
From Wiki:
“Wind power contributed 18% of UK electricity generation in 2018, making up 52% of electricity generation from renewable sources.”
Nate,
I was referring to actual supply at the time of my comment rather than some historical average figure. Data are shown and updated every 5 minutes here:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Wind was very light all day yesterday (high pressure system). You can view or download the data for yesterday if you want to check. Wind is currently 8.41% of demand. Solar is predictable in timing, but not in quantity (better today than yesterday). Apart from a small amount of hydro, the only “reliable” renewable source is biomass, currently running flat out at 3GW (10.66% of demand).
Wind does have the issue of intermittency, whereas other sources have their own issues of being polluting, costly, unsustainable, etc
Wind intermittency is somewhat predictable, daily and seasonally, as with solar.
Along with a smart grid, distributed diverse sources, more energy storage, I dont see this as a fundamentally insurmountable issue.
Nate – Far from it. It is merely the mirror of the problem of inflexibility in coal generation. One will always require technology to match supply to demand, whether one has to balance load or output. A degree of redundancy has always applied.
Elliot, cant tell what you disagree with?
Nate – Agreeing with you. (Although I like to disagree with someone at all times, it is impossible to differ with everyone when they take both positions on a dichotomy!)
I agree that it is far from fundamentally insurmountable. Just business as usual by other means.
Gore and co.
You made a statement “that without cooling the warming would be higher”
Isnt that like saying if we didnt pull the plug on a bath it would overflow.
The atmosphere is complex and exhibits both cooling and warming influences.
You cannot ignore cooling influences because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis.
Complex indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File%3AThe-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
When you put all cooling and warming influences together you still get warming.
EM,
what makes you think we even know all the “cooling and warming influences”? Since we’ve seen constant warming and cooling over historic periods we know that nature can provide them without any help from humans.
We can’t know for certain, but we can measure the overall budget of incoming and outgoing radiation. When all the known influences add up to the incoming flux minus the outgoing, representing a deficit for the known forcings, you at least know that your energy budget balances. From which it follows that any unknown influences add up to zero.
What is it that you do not know for certain? You seem very certain about rubbish fluxes, forcings, and all the other mumbo-jumbo. Duh.
“What is it that you do not know for certain?”
See the post that I replied to, rather than just mine in isolation. Duh.
In fact, no-one can know anything “for certain”, EXCEPT that no-one can know anything for certain. That’s an epistemic theorem, when working within the constraints of empiricism – the only constraints that matter aside from the proofs of mathematics in any useful pursuit like science.
I for one make an effort never to say anything beyond the limits of confidence that I can reasonably justify, so I tend to look things up or test them with a spreadsheet or whatever before offering anything as more than my own opinion. Any time you catch me exceeding that, feel free to point it out, but don’t believe for a minute that insulting Dr. Mann, talking about “the left” or any other such nonsense will suffice instead.
I suspect that you will never find an instance where I am not quoting easily-referred science, checkable arithmetic results or the open dishonesty of a denialist interlocutor. And I guarantee I’ll correct anything that can be shown to be false, once noticed. Mostly another and more numerate poster comes along with better and more quantitative support while the deniers are still trying to work out how to introduce Galileo or Stalin into their “argument”. I just try to shoot down the lies before they can get running.
Uncertainty is not a weakness. It is the foundation of science. It’s the person waving ultimate truths who is selling you someone else’s bridge.
“fluxes, forcings, and all the other mumbo-jumbo”
This is just a display of ignorance. Ignorance is not a sin, unless you choose to wallow in it like that. If you don’t know what I mean by a “flux” or a “forcing”, ASK.
I’m always happy to find new terms that eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
“what makes you think we even know all the ‘cooling and warming influences’? Since weve seen constant warming and cooling over historic periods we know that nature can provide them without any help from humans”
But its not as if we dont understand anything, Richard. We’ve been able to understand and model weather, hurricanes, the global circulation pattern, ocean currents, and glacial cycles.
As for cooling periods, we understand that many of these are driven by volcanoes or the sun.
We can link some past climate warming episodes to GHG emissions from volcanoes.
There are still mysteries, but that’s no reason to dismiss what we do understand.
Was the context agents that have negative radiative forcing effects like aerosols?
For example…if human aerosols emissions decline then the net radiative forcing increases thus yielding a higher level of warming.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
With a mass of 5.10^18kg and a thermal capacity of 1004J/kg/K, a 0.38K temperature decrease means a loss of 2.10^21J in 2592000s, an average outgoing power flux of 7,3.10^14W (730TW), an imbalance of -0,17W/m².
I love calculations like these. However, with 0.38K over 2592000s I actually get…
5.1e18 kg * 1004 J/kg/K * -0.38 K / 2592000 s / 510e12 m^2 = -1.47 W/m^2
Note that I used 510,000,000 km^2 or 510e12 m^2 for surface area.
To put this -1.47 W/m^2 into perspective the Earth energy imbalance has been about +0.6 W/m^2 over the last 30 years.
I said it in January: “Prepare for the collapse of temperatures.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/major-eruption-of-taal-volcano-in-philippines-in-progress/#comment-422497
What do you think will be the final rank of 2020 in terms of annual global mean surface temperature?
2020 will be colder than 2019 but warmer than 2021.
You could be right about that especially if a La Nina develops later this year.
Midas,
‘It has to do with the fact that both individuals use EXACTLY the same language.’
So you claim, without evidence. Robert curses a lot, and I don’t. Anyone can see that Bob is a lot more aggressive.
‘And the fact that once Zoe appeared, Bob completely vanished.’
Because Robert was showing me how to get started. Are you not capable of reading?
Robert went through internet commenting stage when he was a teen and young adult. He’s bored by it. Robert doesn’t like to write.
The fact is that you don’t wanna give a girl the credit she deserves. What’s the term for that?
Hi Sybil / Adam Stampler,
No, I don’t want to give a MAN credit he doesn’t deserve.
Apparently your alter ego was “showing you how to get started” for a number of years. Either that makes you either a very slow learner or a terrible liar. Take your pick.
Minibrain Midas is a troll. He seems obsessed with non-existent people. He is convinced I am someone else, and I cannot be bothered explaining the very obvious reason for his delusions. His Minibrain would be quite incapable of accepting facts. What a dill!
Hey Scott R
It has been suggested that I ask you how “Jupiter and Saturn cause the sun to move away”.
Please enlighten me.
You are a witless troll. Enlightened?
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
When I first read of the near record-setting drop in the global anomaly for April, I thought it supported the global warmists’ argument, as less CO2 would have been spewed into the atmosphere with the COVID-19 induced recession. But then it occurred to me that the greenhouse effect was based on the TOTAL concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which, I assume , would not have gone down in April, what with the long-life of CO2 up there; in fact, may have increased slightly, albeit less than in normal times. If this be the case, than the dramatic drop in temperature might arise from all the other pollutants in our dirty skies decreasing. Any logic in this? (Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, though I play one in my own living room.)
The monthly trend is only +0.001C per month.
The detrended monthly standard deviation is 0.18C.
So the monthly variability is 180 times the upward trend.
Surely that is enough to tell you that you can’t attribute a single monthly change to changes in CO2 levels.
Ken said: If this be the case, than the dramatic drop in temperature might arise from all the other pollutants in our dirty skies decreasing. Any logic in this?
Aerosols produces a net negative radiative force. Less aerosols yield a net positive change in aggregate raditative force. This would put an ever so slight upward pressure on the Earth energy imbalance. But like Midas said the variation in monthly anomalies is quite high so given the short duration and small magnitude of the affect this aerosol signal would easily get lost in the noise.
The April drop is likely to be associated with the warming stratosphere in the previous months. The leading hypothesis is that the Australian wildfires lofted anomalous aerosols into the stratosphere. Prior spikes in stratosphere temperatures have lead cooling in the troposphere. It can take a year or so for this aerosol induced warming/cooling of the stratosphere/troposphere to wane.
Complete rubbish, despite the climastrology jargon. Read some actual physics textbooks. Repetitively spouting nonsense wont make it come true.
Yet it has come true. Clearly they have read the physics with more care than you could muster.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Positive anomaly of 0.38 C seems to be lower than my expectation.
I have expected hotter temperature as result of more solar radiation hitting on the earth, due to more clean air caused by widespread lockdown from the pandemic.
I’m glad its warming up 0.14C per decade.
Warmer is better. Anyone that doesn’t think so should experience frostbite in their toes and fingers.
Does everyone who lives in a snow-covered area get frostbite, or only “special” people?
Trolling, much?
English, perhaps?
“Warmer is better. Anyone that doesn’t think so” lives in Bangladesh or anywhere else between N-S 30 degrees latitude.
N,
Why would you think that? Ever seen pictures of severe frostbite? Due to cold? Mt Everest is about 28 degrees North. You might like to refine your silly assertion a little.
“Lives in Bangladesh or anywhere else in the 40%-odd of land vulnerable to desertification”. Happy?
There is a level of annual precipitation that is conventionally regarded as the limit below which cereals will not grow. Let’s say 250mm, as I cannot scare up the correct figure at short notice. I recently saw an interesting map plotting the 250mm precipitation line on a map of Eurasia and Africa. The line follows the borders of deserts, as you would imagine.
More interestingly, the line passes directly through almost all conflict zones in the region. Even more so, ALL US drone strikes in the region are so close to the line as to be inseparable by eye at that scale.
So warmer is not necessarily better, at least while water and food stress remain bigger threats to human life than mountaineering.
“Mt Everest is about 28 degrees North.” And no one lives on it.
The point, for the perpetually perplexed, is the Earth has a Equator to pole gradient in temperature. Humans and other life-forms have adapted to a range of temperatures.
The notion that increasing the temperature everywhere that humans live is BETTER, is a repeated meme here and makes no sense.
Indeed: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/28/1910114117
“We show that for thousands of years, humans have concentrated in a surprisingly narrow subset of Earths available climates, characterized by mean annual temperatures around ∼13 C. This distribution likely reflects a human temperature niche related to fundamental constraints. We demonstrate that depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, over the coming 50 y, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 y. Absent climate mitigation or migration, a substantial part of humanity will be exposed to mean annual temperatures warmer than nearly anywhere today.”
They project a fair proportion of humanity enduring conditions hotter than today’s Sahara.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
I walked out of Carbon Management company in the Uk back in 2006 after I found out CO2 warming was a fraud, makes me laugh that the 10 other staff smoked and I was the only one who didn’t. They were raking it in earning about 500 a day per engineer and getting bonuses on top of bonuses for contributing nothing all paid for by UK tax’s Carbon trust quango.
Whatever site you are attempting to link to via your name hyperlink doesn’t exist.
And what does smoking have to do with anything when all cigarettes smoked around the world contribute only 1% of 1% of human CO2 emissions?
“I walked out of Carbon Management company in the Uk back in 2006 after I found out CO2 warming was a fraud”
Interesting way to excuse getting fired. I always say I thought the boss was a wanker.
Des, Elliott, please stop trolling.
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/03/co2-versus-global-covid19-response/
Hey Bob Phin – why would we expect CO2 concentrations to stop rising when we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
Midas Minibrain,
Still obsessed with your delusions that people are not who they claim? You should use thicker tinfoil for your hat. Aliens have obviously occupied your skull!
Midas,
I don’t talk to rapists.
WTF are you smoking?
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas! What is your purpose here on this blog?
Why don’t you ask that of “Amazed” aka Mike Flynn?
The question still remains!
E,
And the answer will still remain elusive, I guess. Hes just a troll, and not a very good one, at that.
Evert Backstrom
And… what is here the purpose of people like
– Amazed, who accuses all commentators s/he dislikes to troll, i.e. to do exactly what s/he does all the time?
– Robertson, who discredits, denigrates, insults all people he either doesn’t (want to) understand or dislikes?
Sind Sie auf dem ‘rechten’ Auge blind, Herr Kommissar?
J.-P. D.
The difference between Midas and Amazed is clear. One is a classic troll pestering everybody. The other is singling out the troll so the rest of us don’t have to.
Chic Bowdrie
” The other is singling out the troll so the rest of us don’t have to. ”
It seems to me you have no problem with people like Amazed, Mike Flynn, Robertson, Eben & some others, who persist in insulting all people having a different meaning than their own…
Sind auch Sie auf dem ‘rechten’ Auge blind, Herr Bowdrie?
Weiter so!
J.-P. Dehottay
I didn’t ask for your opinions, I did exactly the opposite, Once you blatantly disregarded my request to keep your idiotic comments out of my posts you are free game, I will insult you any time I feel like to.
Eben – if you want the freedom to post your BS unchallenged then start your own blog and block everyone you don’t like. This is a public forum, and you have no business insisting people not reply. If you don’t like it, find the door.
Minibrain Midas,
If you are trying to convince others that CO2 has heating properties, you are not being very successful, are you? If you are trying to annoy others for fun, you overlook the fact that people might choose not to be annoyed, but rather to be slightly bemused at your silliness. Not terribly bright, are you?
Final two sentences right back at you.
Minibrain,
No doubt others will note your alarmist cherry-picking, troll.
B,
Why would any rational person choose to be insulted by anything I say? Do you think everyone is as weak minded as you? Grow a pair! Stand tall! Be proud!
Bindidong and Muflerboi the Two biggest trolls who troll every single threat posted in here now complaining about trolling.
I just wait to see who disappears in the next troll purge round
“One is a classic troll pestering everybody.”
I sincerely hope you mean Amazed-Mike-Flynn, the thrice-banned poster.
Regardless of team, he is the trolliest troll we have.
No. There is another.
(Watched The Empire Strikes Back last night)
barry, please stop trolling.
Heh Roy what is this ranked for April vs rest of Aprils>
NCEP CFSR was 2cnd warmest but still within a tenth of UAH ( you have the gold standard I watch the CFSR cause I can see what its estimating every day
1. 1998/4: +0.74
2. 2016/4: +0.73
3. 2019/4: +0.44
4. 2020/4: +0.38
Quick question…why do you refer to UAH as being the gold standard as opposed to some other dataset? What technical detail about it do you feel makes it superior to all others?
At least you can rule out the surface measurements. Read about it here: http://venturaphotonics.com/files/VPCN_004.1_WhatSurfT.pdf
Robertson’s ignorance concerning anomaly-based time series and trends
is simply horrifiying.
Let us review his nonsense:
“ How can anyone claim a 0.14C/decade linear ‘TRUE’ warming trend when 18 years was below average and another 18 years had a flat trend? What happens if the anomalies drop back to the baseline? How then will you calculate the trend?
These trends are not calculated using a best fit of the data over the entire range since that could not be done using end points between 1979 and 2020. They are calculated using algorithms that ignore the physical contexts. They operate on the data alone without consideration of the contexts from which the data came.
The only way a 0.14C trend could have been calculated for TRUE warming would have been a scenario in which the UAH trend began at the baseline in 1979 and continued upward till the trend line intercepted the y-axis after 40 years at 0.56C. That has not been the case. ”
*
1. My first question would be: Why doesn’t Robertson at least have the courage to seek an explicit confrontation with Roy Spencer, who precisely calculates and publishes the trend of 0.14 C / decade for his own data – what Robertson nonetheless allows himself to doubt?
Why does he not tell Roy Spencer that his trend computation is wrong?
*
2. Robertson has, though having been informed by many commentators in this blog, still no knowledge about how a linear trend is calculated.
Trends are based on ordinary least squares, and have nothing to do with any average, let alone with anomalies. They are exactly what he refuses to learn and accept: a best fit over a set of data points, e.g.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14alPDag5YUJkhLqJZgfQjpTId6MN__DB/view
In this graph, only the data points are shown, and not the lines connecting them.
What Robertson doesn’t not understand (or, maybe, deliberately ignores) is that if another period was chosen to compute the anomalies out of the absolute data (e.g. 1990-2014 instead of 1981-2010), this would result in different anomalies, but the trend computed out of the new anomaly data points would keep the same.
This has been explained to him so many times that I suspect that he is repeating his nonsense endlessly in the hope to be considered an expert on the matter.
*
3. Maybe it helps if I show a reconstruction of UAH’s absolute data, together with the trend, this time computed out of the absolute data points:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2qDLO0T8ZO6IqduIdlppIoIAKSsDY7F/view
No red baseline here, and thus no rewarming below the baseline, no TRUE warming above the baseline. Only warming.
The trend line looks a bit flatter than in the anomaly chart, but the trends for Dec 1978 – Mar 2020 are nearly equal (0.135 C / decade for the anomalies, 0.133 C for the absolute values).
And of course: the trend for 1998-2015 is here absolutely flat as well, he he.
Maybe he understands now (or is willing to give up his nonsensical ideas). But maybe what he wrote will reappear unchanged at the next opportunity. So what!
J.-P. D.
P.S. For those who always refer to 2016 as the ‘Super El Nino year’: please notice that the highest absolute value (-7.35 C) is in July 1998, and not in 2016.
Pointless discussion, unless you believe that the future can be usefully predicted from a trend. The future is unknowable, my friend. It hasnt happened yet!
As usual: pointless, redundant reply which has not anything to do with my comment.
You remind me more and more of these little dogs that visit every tree to proudly get rid of a ‘small legacy’.
I enjoy!
B,
Your comment was taking someone to task about trends. Count the number of times the word trend appears. What was your point? If you agree that trends do not predict the future, why the pointless fixation with them?
Maybe you should stick to following dogs around, and examining their small legacies. As you said, you enjoy it.
svante…”He likes his PRATTs, for example that base lines are the gold standard for “true warming” (they are arbitrary)”.
Maybe you and Gore & Co. should read what real climate scientists have to say on that. I got my information on true warming after the 1998 EN from the UAH 33 year report. Furthermore, UAH has addressed the projected situation with no aerosol cooling, claiming the trend would have been 0.09C/decade.
The two of you need to take courses in statistics. If you have a trend below the baseline it means the anomalies are cooler than the baseline temperature. Without the aerosol cooling, the anomalies move toward the baseline making the trend lower, as claimed by UAH, not higher.
What is it about negative anomalies you don’t understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins.
UAH is perfectly right to claim a 0.014C/decade trend but they are smart enough to realize it means data beginning below the baseline and continuing through the baseline to warmer anomalies. That trend says nothing about global warming per se, it is a trend from cooler temps to warmer trends.
“That trend [0.014C/decade] says nothing about global warming per se, it is a trend from cooler temps to warmer trends.”
This baffles me. A trend from cooler temps to warmer temps is pretty much the *definition* of global warming over the period being studied.
The trend doesn’t say is *why* it warmed. Nor does the trend say what is “normal”. But it most definitely says the globe has warmed.
It could be — as you speculate — that temperatures in the 1980’s were cool and then there was “a recovery” back toward “normal”. It might be that the globe was “normal” in the 1980’s and then crept above “normal” in the next decades. It could also be that the 1980’s were already above “normal”, but temperatures rose even farther from there.
* ALL OF THESE would produce exactly the same graph in the top post.
* ALL OF THESE would start below the baseline and move above the baseline.
——————————-
“Furthermore, UAH has addressed the projected situation with no aerosol cooling, claiming the trend would have been 0.09C/decade.”
I have not read this report, but your description here does sound reasonable. *IF* the 1980’s were cooled an exceptionally large amount by aerosols (from pollution or volcanoes or any other source), then if we could somehow do a controlled experiment without those aerosols, the temperatures would be higher in the 1980s and the data would be higher (closer to the baseline). This would cause a decrease in the trend observed.
(Of course, that would also INCREASE the trend leading up to the 1980’s.)
Richard M…”Surface data sets are very poor and are not based on anything closely approaching science”.
The guy at chiefio exposed the fudging that goes on with surface temps. I mentioned how Bolivia has altitudes of over 15,000 feet, which would mean cooler temps. NOAA no longer lists Bolivia, rather they have fudged a temperature for Bolivia using an interpolation of areas around Bolivia at much lower temps.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Much more if you dig a bit.
Robert Ingersoll…”Accuracy of surface instrumental record now confirmed with satellite obvservations”.
You provide a link to a paper by the Mother of all Alarmists, Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS. Schmidt is a mathematician who programs models with a warming positive feedback and CO2 with a fudged warming factor of 9% – 25%. In an attempt to explain positive feedback he failed to do it.
At the link below, scroll half the way down the page to the title ‘Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback’.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
He runs realclimate, the Mother of ALL Alarmist Sites, with his good buddy Michael Mann, who was noted in the Climategate email scandal as the author of ‘the trick’, a scam invented by Mann to hide declining temperatures. The Climategate emails reveal him vigorously trying to interfere with peer review. Meanwhile, back on the ranch at realclimate, Schmidt, the head of GISS, covered for him with lame excuses for why Mann was acting like an alarmist climate hooligan.
You won’t find any objective scientific evidence in an article by Schmidt that the satellite data is corroborating the fudged surface series, with GISS as one of the leading fudgers under Schmidt.
Nurse! Come quickly – Gordon is out of his restraints again !
Go away, silly troll.
… and his little side-kick is screeching again!
Go away, silly troll.
My apologies – somebody told him Michael Mann has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. That has set him off again.
Ian…” somebody told him Michael Mann has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. That has set him off again”.
Not surprising, if it’s true. NAS was once a prestigious organization with stringent entrance requirements. Then they made the mistake of allowing one climate alarmist into the fold. Then they spread like vermin to get more alarmists in.
If it is true, that Mann has been elected, NAS is lost. I could see Mann being elected to the climate alarmist clown-of-the year contest, but not NAS. Failed geologists should not be allowed into NAS.
Maybe….. just maybe….there are are people out there who are smarter than you and know what they are doing.
But then again, as somebody once noted, “It is fun being paranoid – you don’t have to take responsibility for your current woes. Just blame others.”
Ian…”Maybe….. just maybe….there are are people out there who are smarter than you and know what they are doing”.
One of those people is definitely not Michael Mann. And another is definitely not you since you support that misogynist twit.
You would never find me doing something as stupid as studying tree rings over a 1000 years to infer unprecedented warming in the 1990s, fudging the proxy data when it did not indicate what I expected, and especially not using one tree to cover an entire century. Mann is not worthy of being the janitor at NAS.
And I am not as stupid as those in the IPCC who rushed to embrace a study lead by a first year Ph.D, in geology of all sciences. There are smart geologists but the field tends to attract students looking for an easy degree.
“Failed geologists should not be allowed into NAS.”
And exactly what body stands above NAS in scientific reputation such as to permit it to dictate this to them?
elliot…”And exactly what body stands above NAS in scientific reputation such as to permit it to dictate this to them?”
You are talking about the former reputation of NAS. It is obviously now a retirement home for climate alarmists.
No, it’s obviously now a target for denialist smears because it has so decisively dismissed their earlier smear campaign against Dr. Mann. (By electing him a member, in case I forget to mention.)
Do you seriously believe that anyone is fooled by this transparent and increasingly ridiculous to defame every scientific body that lines up in favour of real science? By creationists and conspiracy theorists working for vested interests and political bodies, I might add.
Sorry, Ian.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Robert Ingersoll…”Very sciency with intercept the y-axis, but seems confused on which axis that is”.
You are the one who is confused. A trend line over a range between a beginning y-axis and and ending y-axis could only intercept the y-axis. an intercept at the x-axis would make no sense.
You completely missed the point I was trying to make. If the UAH data over the range from 1979 can be expressed as a linear trend line of 0.14C/decade, it means the data points between 1979 and 2020 are being expressed as a straight line. I was trying to show the difference between a line extending from the x-axis at (1979,0) to a right-axis at (2020,5.6) which would have represented true warming.
However, the data begins below the x-axis which on the UAH graph is called the baseline, representing the global average from 1980 – 2010. It’s amazing how many wannabee statisticians on this blog fail to grasp that. The x-axis is that global average. Any anomalies below the baseline represent temperatures below the average.
The trend as a line is a function of x (y = f(x)). That means for each point on the x-axis there is a unique point on the y-axis corresponding to the x-point. The line is described by y = mx + b, where m is the slope of the line (change in y versus change in x) and b is the y-intercept. That intercept applies at x = 0 if the line passes through the y-axis at a point other than (0,0).
However, with a trend line, with the line extending through a range, as in the UAH graph from 1979 – 2020, you are concerned with where it intercepts both the left and right axes at either end of the range. I was referring to the left-most coordinate as (1979,0) and the right-most coordinate as (2020,5.6), or whatever value I used. I was using 5.6C as the right-most y-intercept based on 0.14C/decade x 4 decades.
There is no way a trend expressed as so many degrees /decade could be anything other than a straight line. Such a trend line is trying to make a best fit of a straight line through data points. On the other hand, Roy has kindly supplied a different type statistic called a running average, which smooths out the erratic data point anomalies and gives as a better picture of the trend.
Using that red curve, the running average, you can average the trend visually in a rough manner and see that several trends are apparent in the data. There is a rewarming trend from 1979 – 1998, a flat trend from 1998 – 2015, then two trends, at least from 2015 onward.
It’s obvious there has been a warming since 1979 but what does it mean? Many alarmists are claiming it as proof of CO2 warming yet how could CO2 cause an 18 year flat trend? Many of us see it as a natural cyclical trend that should eventually come back down to the baseline or below.
swannie…”The fact that there are more data points below the average in the beginning of the record and more above later just tells anyone whos listening that there warming going on. The trend calculation does not rely on the baseline in regard and the trend is the important variable, not this months particular value above (or below) the baseline.
Moron.”
You, of all people, should not be calling anyone a moron after your amazingly ignorant conclusions from experiments alleging the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. It was blatantly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics that you were mistaking a reverse transfer of heat (cold to hot), contradicting the 2nd law, with a reduced heat dissipation in a body causing that body to warm naturally toward its temperature with no dissipation.
With regard to your analysis of trends and baseline, they are just about equally ignorant. Since the baseline is also the x axis at y=0, the slope of the trend line has everything to do with the baseline. The anomalies are the departure from the baseline in the +/- y direction.
The trend ‘line’ is a function of x as in y = f(x). In this case x is a measure of time (months/years) and y is a measure of temperature. That is reflected in the measure of the trend line in degrees C/decade. Having established the baseline at y = 0 as the global average from 1981 – 2010, each anomaly is the departure from that average each month.
It’s painfully obvious that a positive trend line below y = 0, the global average, represents a recovery from cooling. As UAH have pointed out in the 33 year report, a trend line above the baseline is ‘TRUE’ warming.
Having established that, the true warming rose about 0.15C from 2000 – 2001 then the trend flattened for 15 years at that level. It was not till mid-2015 that the trend began to rise again, in conjunction with a major El Nino in early 2016. Then it became negative till mid-2018 when it became positive again.
It’s not possible based on the shortness of the UAH record to make claims about an overall global warming. Neither is it possible to get the degree of warming from the NOAA and Gistemp records since they are seriously fudged by climate alarmists.
As it stands, about all we can agree upon is that warming has occurred since the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. That warming is to be expected.
Gordo, you have no clue what the “base line” you refer to means. As you view the UAH graph at the top of this post, what you are seeing is the result of an an averaging process. Once the “raw” gridded data, in Kelvin, is processed, it is reduced to monthly zonally averaged data with averaging over some selected base period. But, to compare different latitudes and seasons, the seasonal cycle for each latitude zone is calculated and then subtracted from the monthly data for each year. The resulting anomalies can then be averaged over some range of latitude, such as the UAH 20S to 20N as Tropics or the 60N to 82.5N region called Arctic, averaged by weighting with the cosine of latitude to account for the reduction in area of each zone as latitude increases.
The resulting data sets, such as the MT or the TP, will exhibit a range of values on a scatter plot, with the center of the distribution being around the zero line of the graph. A trend line can then be calculated to fit the resulting data.
And, no, the GPE does not violate the 2nd Law and there’s no such thing as a “natural temperature” of a body as you allude to above.
swannie…”you have no clue what the base line you refer to means”.
As it states on the y-axis of the UAH graph, the baseline is the global average from 1981 – 2010. What is it about the simple definition you don’t understand? The anomalies are described as the ‘departure’ from that average.
And, yes, every body has a natural temperature when dissipation is total stopped. If you consider the 2N3055 power transistor it will reach a certain junction temperature at 25C ambient conditions. It will maintain a safe junction temperature as long as you allow as much heat to escape as what is introduced by the junction current. Heat in – heat out is the key.
If you suppress all dissipation, its temperature will rise to the temperature produced by electrons running through the semiconductor junction. If the temperature is too high, it will cause thermal runaway and the transistor will burn up. So, we need to find a current it can sustain just before thermal runaway.
I call that temperature its natural temperature ‘with all dissipation suppressed’. Once you supply a means of radiative dissipation, conductive and convective dissipation, the temperature would drop to a certain temperature which it would maintain under those conditions of dissipation. If you come along and block any one of those means of dissipation the temperature will increase toward the natural temperature I described.
That’s what happened in your experiment. The BP had established a temperature with the amount of free radiation it had balancing the heat input. When you raised the GP right in front of it, you blocked that free radiation and the BP reacted by warming. It had nothing to do with back radiation from the colder GP as you claimed, the temperature rise was due only to the effect of the heating supplied.
Since you can’t stop an object from radiating based on its temperature and emissivity, there is no way to “block radiative dissipation”.
However, further testing by Hughes confirmed that the BP does not rise in temperature when a GP is added.
Case closed.
Case closed that Hughes is an incompetent experimentalist. Sophist test results reported on a blog disproving the 1LOT and/or 2LOT will not work to convince anyone in the field, except the sophists.
When experimental results don’t go the way they like, sophists like Ball4 just call the experimenter incompetent.
When 47000 ‘experimental results dont go the way’ DREMT wants he waits for one one for one from blog ‘science’ and then declares ‘case closed’.
Gordo, Let me try again, this time with a very simply explanation for your feeble mind.
The anomalies are the result of subtracting the average over some base period from the actual brightness temperatures.
As a result of this process, the data is spread along the zero line when plotted. Changing the base period would simply changes the position of the data relative to zero when plotted, as long as there’s no change in the yearly average. Trouble is, the yearly seasonal cycle is also changing as the Earth warms.
But, this process is calculated using each division of the zonal data, BEFORE these data are aggregated to produce the global or regional averages.
Then you wrote:
You obviously don’t understand what you are talking about. Under ambient conditions, your transistor is constantly dissipating energy to the surroundings, the rate of said dissipation being a function of the temperature of the surroundings. If the surroundings change, for example the air temperature increases, the temperature of your transistor will also increase. The reverse is also true, lower ambient temperatures will reduce the transistor’s temperature.
There’s always going to be dissipation whenever you are operating your transistor device. You are still being a moron for failing to understand that reality.
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
..
“it’s just your blog science experiment”, that plus all heat transfer in textbooks, and all the experimental tests that it has passed.
#2
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Some Germans believed they were winning WWI at its end, and this led them to start and decisively lose WWII.
They finally learned.
DREMT similarly believes he was winning these arguments, and it leads him to keep bringing them up and decisively losing them all over again.
Except DREMT never learns, and wants to fight the 47th war.
#3
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
DREMT, when you repeat the same post 3 times, the IQ of the internet drops a little.
And literally no one reads them.
#4
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
gore & co…”looking doesnt replace calculating”
Funny, they encouraged us to do that in engineering before we rushed to calculations. In fact, we were trained to do things by inspection in problem sets before rushing to an answer.
You can learn a good deal about what a problem or question is asking by looking at, or creating a simple graph. I agree that calculations are more accurate but there are cases when a visual inspection is so good that working out the details is not that helpful. Furthermore, working purely on a calculator or Excel program can be seriously misleading.
In Engineering, we were taught to confirm answers worked out on calculators by simplified methods. If you look at the real contexts in the UAh graph, a trend of 0.14C/decade is not very helpful. In fact, it is misleading. It does not describe the data accurately and leads alarmists to conclude the trend is due to CO2 warming.
If you LOOK at the graph with scrutiny, it becomes apparent that CO2 could never produce the different contexts that are obvious. Roy claims he thinks CO2 may be partially responsible but he does not say how much. He also claims that natural variability is likely.
You are NOT an engineer.
Have you ever thought about getting away from the Internet and “everyone else is stupid except me” and maybe getting some nice warm air, instead of producing it?
plastic…”You are NOT an engineer”.
What are you, a clairvoyant, or just a voyeur?
Robertson is under the belief that the scholarship he received for not working for years so he could retrain was a reward for intelligence, rather than a disguised oil-industry payment for being a useful dunce.
Why is that when one has no argument the argument goes ad hominem?
barry…”work out where I got this graph from”
The graph you produced in your reply to me is not the graph you used in the first. The second, from Roy, uses two of the channels from the weighting functions I posted. Note the blue line is channel 5 and extends to the surface.
I have also noted how flustered you get when you are caught in an error. You did the same when I posted proof that the IPCC admitted to a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 and that NOAA admitted to slashing it’s surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Robertson,
The first graph has a URL, which you can read and see where it comes from, the same way you can see that the second graph I linkes is from Roy Spencer. Quit being dense.
I haven’t got caught out in a error, you nitwit. The TLT channel (originally channel 2, now channel 5) measures a deep swathe of the atmosphere weighted most strongly at about 3 kilometers. That isd what I said, and exactly what Roy’s graph shows you.
Did you know that MSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear of microwave radiance at those frequencies, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave emissivity of the surface (it’s ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using these measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.
So no, UAH on-board instruments cannot separate ground from atmospheric radiance. In fact, there is some stratospheric influence in the product UAH call Temperature Lowere Troposphere. There is also ground influence, but it is impossible to extract the temperature of these thinner layers from the 12km swathe UAH TLT is measuring.
barry…”I dont think UAH is the best. They are all estimates with strengths and weaknesses ”
Are you sure Bindidon has not taken over your nym? I don’t recall you being quite this stupid.
An AMSU unit on a NOAA satellite is a sophisticated electronic device flown originally to get date for weather forecasting. It does not ‘estimate’ it measures directly the microwave emissions from oxygen molecules. Like any instrument measuring a broad range of frequencies it averages the emissions received. However, the frequency spectrum is broken down into channels that can measure frequencies pertinent to the lower atmosphere.
Claiming the measurements are estimates is based on ignorance of the pressure/temperature relationship in the lower atmosphere which is linear. It’s a far better system than thermometers in boxes at fixed heights in the atmosphere spread out over distance of a 1000 miles. Even Hansen admitted to the problems there.
When NOAA begins artificially estimating temperatures based on an interpolation and homogenization of temperatures from stations up to 1200 miles apart, using a climate model, then you have fudged temperatures. That’s over the land surfaces not the oceans, which are completely fudged due to the impossibility of getting thermometers to cover them.
You supreme ignorance on this is boundless, and in the face of many source material being made available to you to learn better, endless.
Of course the temperature measurements are estimates. There are numerous instruments over time, decay of orbit of the satellites over time and intercallibration between different sensors and satellites is not perfect as Dr Spencer has said himself.
Further, the satellites do not read the entire Earth in one go. They take a few days to scan the globe, so you do not have real-time complete coverage.
It is fascinating that it makes no impression on you that the UAH TLT product has been through many versions and the trends from those data have changed, sometimes dramatically, with every revision.
If the AMSU data is perfect, why do revisions keep happening?
You’re just brainless, mate.
barry…”Of course the temperature measurements are estimates”.
There is a difference between estimates and error margins. Everything in good science is stated with an error margin. UAH claimed that the orbital issue in the Tropics produced an error that fell within the stated error margin.
In electronics, resistors are stated with a tolerance. You never expect a 10K resistor to measure exactly 10,000 ohms on a DVM. Tolerances are built into scientific measurement as error margins. We had that drummed into us in first year science labs.
UAH has claimed to have compared it’s temperature measurements with radiosondes and found them to compare favourably.
And so does RSS. It depends on which radiosonde data you use.
Look at the trend comparisons between UAH, RSS and various radiosondes here:
https://tinyurl.com/yac9srnj
John Garrett…”Piltdown Mann was either hopelessly incompetent or a fraud”.
It was the former, he had just received his Ph.D (in geology) a year before publishing the paper. He was still green around the ears yet he got published and the IPCC and Al Gore rushed to endorse his madness.
Although Mann’s paper ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age (they wanted a flat shaft for the hockey stick), the IPCC should have caught that because in the 1990 review they published a graph acknowledging the MWP and LIA.
The IPCC soon distanced itself from the hockey stick, re-issuing it with so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph. It also re-instituted the MWP and the LIA so the shaft looks nothing like a straight shaft. Whereas Mann had claimed 1000 years, the IPCC changed that to 1850 onward.
The IPCC is loaded with climate alarmists. Phil Jones of Had-crut and Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, were partners as Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews. CLAs select the Lead Authors, who are politically selected, and the LAs select the reviewers.
All in all, the process stinks. After the reviews are submitted by 2500 reviewers, the IPCC allows the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 lead authors to override the reviews. They amend the reviews by 2500 reviewers so it is in line with the Summary.
In the Climategate email scandal, Jones is quoted as claiming he and ‘Kevin’ will make sure that certain skeptical papers don’t make it into the IPCC review stage. I am sure one of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
The IPCC, and now NAS, has been infiltrated by alarmist scumbags. Anyone who claims the hockey stick is legit, is not only delusional, he/she is an idiot.
“The IPCC, and now NAS, has been infiltrated by alarmist scumbags.”
Yep, there it is: Now even the NAS has to be smeared. What did that take, about 36 hours? Getting slow.
“Anyone who claims the hockey stick is legit, is not only delusional, he/she is an idiot.”
Arf. Anyone claiming to have successfully reconstructed historical temperatures without finding a hockey stick is a liar. What your kind can never grasp is that science ultimately rests on INDEPENDENT REPLICATION. Being ideologues you think that discrediting the original witness will make reality go away, but the witness could turn out to be Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Dracula, Yosemite Sam and Donald Trump all rolled into one and that would not make it go dark inside when they say it is daytime.
We agree that it is daytime because everyone looks out the window and sees that the Sun is out. Smearing the first person to notice only works in politics.
Elliott…”What your kind can never grasp is that science ultimately rests on INDEPENDENT REPLICATION”.
Yes…it’s called the scientific method. How could anyone possibly duplicate the trash science in the hockey stick pseudo-science? Two of the first claiming to do it were…tada…students of Mann.
When McIntyre and McKitrick analyzed the work of Mann et al, they found that white noise would produce a hockey stick using the Mann et al algorithms. When statistics expert Wegmann analyzed it he agreed, and added that section 9 of the IPCC reviews were all buddies of Mann who nepotically cited only the works of each other.
After the misogynist behaviour of Mann toward scholar Judith Curry, who is at least twice the scientist Mann ever thought of being, and his despicable behavior revealed in the Climategate email scandal, why would NAS possibly induct him? The only possible answer is that NAS is now run by climate alarmist weenies.
I omitted to clarify the section 9 incident. When M&M complained to the IPCC about the hockey stick they were initially rebuffed by IPCC bigwig Susan Solomon. She finally acquiesced and appointed section 9 to investigate. They completely ignored her, leading Wegmann to investigate as to why. That’s when he found section 9 and Mann were buddies who cited only the work of each other.
Wegmann referred to section 9 as nepotic. The only retort from Mann et al was to charge Wegmann with plagiarism. Excuse me??? An investigator quotes from the works of one of the co-authors in MBB98, and he is charged with plagiarism??? The weenies in MBB were too stupid to understand the meaning of plagiarism.
“Yesits called the scientific method. How could anyone possibly duplicate the trash science in the hockey stick pseudo-science?”
No-one, basically. Everyone who has constructed a corroborating series has found the same shape.
“When McIntyre and McKitrick analyzed the work of Mann et al”
I.e. did not attempt their own replication.
“they found that white noise would produce a hockey stick using the Mann et al algorithms.”
When you use epicycles as they were calculated at the time of Kepler, you can produce the movement of the planets BETTER than using the maths of heliocentrism as it was used at the same time. Heliocentrism remains correct, nevertheless. It is only in the delusional world of deniers that a correct result with an irrelevent methodological flaw remains incorrect for all time, no matter how often it is reproduced with corrected methods.
The hockey stick remains no matter who reconstructs it, no matter how carefully the method is corrected. It’s real. None of you will ever produce a conflicting result. In fact, as your perpetual, desperate resort to McI and McK demonstrates, you cannot even imagine what a conflicting result would look like. You are citing an alleged demonstration that the result would appear even if not real instead of a demonstration that it does not appear when properly checked and YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
Now that’s pitiful.
“When statistics expert Wegmann analyzed it he agreed, and added that section 9 of the IPCC reviews were all buddies of Mann who nepotically cited only the works of each other.”
See above. Not one person can show that the hockey stick is not there when methodological flaws are later corrected. Not one person can produce a conflicting result. Dozens of teams independently reproduce the same phenomenon. It’s real.
“After the misogynist behaviour of Mann toward scholar Judith Curry, who is at least twice the scientist Mann ever thought of being, and his despicable behavior revealed in the Climategate email scandal, why would NAS possibly induct him?”
Because he’s a scientist of NAS-level standing and importance, and because the NAS is more interested in that fact than in your attempt to smear him with irrelevances and name-calling.
Anyway, if you still believe in the climategate “scandal” you are a couple of perverts short of a conservative club.
“Dozens of teams independently reproduce the same phenomenon. It’s real.”
Every one of those teams used enough of the same known to be HS proxies a priori eliminating the proxies that do not show enough HS for their particular taste. If not, then post up a published study that does no a priori proxy selection & properly uses all the available proxies in the field exactly as published by the original author.
Post ANY published temperature reconstruction that fails to confirm Mann et al’s original finding. I have issued this challenge repeatedly and never been answered. Instead of responding you move the goalposts by inserting a manifestly unsatisfiable condition based on an unfounded allegation of “taste”.
All published reconstructions using proxies have by definition satisfied the preconditions of sufficient quality for publication, the only conditions that interest anyone. Trying to filter out the entire body of research with deranged fantasies about “taste” does not dismiss the clear inference that you have no papers at all with which to falsify the Hockey Stick. It reinforces that inference.
Can you even name a proxy where the “original author” is not also party to the temperature reconstruction? I’d be surprised if you ever even bothered to cross-check.
Global multiproxy database here: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788 It’s quite big.
“Can you even name a proxy where the “original author” is not also party to the temperature reconstruction?”
Tiljander.
I observe Elliot was unable to post up any paleo temperature reconstructions without a priori selection to limit proxies to those containing the signals selected by the researchers.
Confirming, so far, my position there is no relevant paper that uses ALL the proper proxies in the field, the quite big “Global multiproxy database” which doesn’t contain unpublished data used in some reconstructions so the work cannot be replicated.
“Tiljander.”
Fair enough. Mann used that one as part of an aggregate study of many proxies, so it is not unexpected that he would not have prodiced them all personally. Hardly supports anything else you say, though, does it?
“I observe Elliot was unable to post up any paleo temperature reconstructions without a priori selection to limit proxies to those containing the signals selected by the researchers”
I don’t have to. It’s quite obviously an illegitimate demand and intended only as a crude attempt to distract from your lack of any supporting research. Any study is clearly going to select and/or normalise data according to quality criteria fitting the study. Since that leaves it open for you to keep parroting unsubstantiated claims that the selection was done just to bias the outcome, there is no legitimate need to answer.
The fact that none of you can come up with a study of your own that falsifies Mann et al is the only criterion that need be considered, as it is the only SCIENTIFIC basis on which dozens of replications could possibly be overturned.
Any of you could go through that database or collect your own proxy data and show the outcome when it is properly analysed. But you’re not going to do that, because you know just as well as the rest of us that the Hockey Stick will just end up getting yet another replication if you try. So we just get empty bluster.
“Hardly supports anything else you say, though, does it?”
Not intended. Only an answer to the focused question you asked.
“I don’t have to.”
Then your claim the HS always results when a priori proxy selection “fitting the study” is not employed is in no way credible.
Elliot, you really do have to come up with a published study not using a priori proxy selection showing a HS since they all use proxy pre-selection before going into the meat grinder in this peculiar specialist field. Quality control is entirely different.
Come on Elliot, do the work, back up your claim “The hockey stick remains no matter who reconstructs it” without your “fitting the study”, you won’t be able to do so since it always..ALWAYS matters to a priori select proxies in this field to result in a HS.
If you could do so easily, you already would have posted up the paper not using a priori proxy selection contrary to my claim they all do so. I don’t claim to have seen every relevant paper (as is implicit in your claim that you have) thus you might actually find one. Would be interesting.
“Every one of those teams used enough of the same known to be HS proxies a priori eliminating the proxies that do not show enough HS for their particular taste. ”
This is your claim Ball4. Where is this idea from? Can you back it up with any evidence?
Nate, clearly a great deal of analysis* could be done answering your questions. Generating hockey sticks has become a cottage industry. My view was formed from reading up on the subject. All you need to do is find one relevant paleotemperature reconstruction paper with no smoothing & no elimination of temperature proxy for any reason to defeat my claim. I’ve never found one but plenty could be out there as I haven’t looked in a while.
It’s the same argument on temperature series trends ad inifinitum around here, a real time waster, better things to do and life is short.
*OK, to be helpful, fyi here’s a start for some reading:
“Unless the data is measured with no error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!…This is because smoothing induces spurious signals.. ”
Ok, well I suppose except for the red curve in the top post which is at least helpful for weather changes and the black line which is helpful for climate changes.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/195/
Interesting article, a little over the top. He likes Climate Audit? Ugggh
His quote “Unless the data is measured with error, you”
Different from yours?
Good catch Nate, you are paying admirable attention. My guess is Briggs typo’d left out the word no if you read the next sentence for comparison.
Briggs also likes McShane and Wyner, see at the bottom where a straight yellow climate line fits the real data just as well as the Gordie Howe weather stick. The straight yellow line cannot be “rejected with any great certainty” over the last 1000 years.
“Elliot, you really do have to come up with a published study not using a priori proxy selection showing a HS since they all use proxy pre-selection before going into the meat grinder in this peculiar specialist field.”
No. I don’t. Theory predicts the hockey stick. Every study reproduces the hockey stick. You cannot show a single properly-conducted temperature series for the period that does not show the hockey stick. NOT ONE, nota bene; sampling errors and uncertainties alone should generate one spurious negative result per 20 at the conventional 2-sigma confidence rate, so the overall confidence taken in aggregate is much, much higher.
There is not a single legitimate criticism you can raise that addresses the entire range of proxies, and not a single line of evidence that supports your claim. Worse, not a single properly-conducted study WITHIN a single line of evidence, which chance alone should have coughed up by now if there were any real uncertainty.
That’s why you’re essentially reduced to claiming that you can ignore scores of studies purely on the basis that you cannot understand the basis for selecting data streams. A selection without which, ironically, probably no study would be fit for publication.
But you keep on with your “I don’t know, therefore God” line. Or global conspiracy, in this case. No-one will ever notice that you have no evidence. Arf.
BTW, did I mention that Doctor Mann was just elected to the NAS?
“Every study reproduces the hockey stick.”
Of course Elliot, as I keep pointing out, since “every study” a priori selects certain temperature proxies that are known to have a strong enough HS shape & deselect proxies that don’t show a HS (blade up) in this peculiar field. As I wrote, I am aware of no study that avoids the pre-selection process & uses all the proxies in the database, generally accepted applied statistical skill, and with decent quality control. Same as Elliot because none are available, Elliot just runs in place avoiding working the issue.
Science is not conducted based on votes in elections Elliot. Funding science IS based on votes in elections though so researchers in this field react to prevailing economic incentive.
“where a straight yellow climate line fits the real data just as well as the Gordie Howe weather stick.”
1. He claims that, but doesnt show that it is the case. Drawing a line is not sufficient.
2. A straight line clearly doesnt fit the instrumental record.
The straight yellow line and the real unsmoothed temperature data (which has measurement error) are both 95% significant as all their respective points are within the CIs. Nature’s actual precise data, if known, could even be outside those CIs (the other 5%).
The HS is just as significant as a straight line but HS papers get way more funding than straight lines like the black line in top post. It’s just the way the world works.
“all their respective points are within the CIs.’
That’s now how curve fitting works, Ball4.
For example, I could draw a curve that is always on the bottom end of the 2 sigma CI, but that would be a terrible fit and have low significance.
If we look at a temperature record sampled monthly, instead of yearly, we will get more noise and larger CI, and according to your logic, a wider variety of curves could then fit the data.
If we sample weekly, or daily, even worse.
And that makes no sense.
Nate, the significance doesn’t change as you write. A hockey stick, a straight constant line, a descending or ascending line from left to right all fit the MW Fig. 16 with 95% confidence that nature does too. Take your pick with equal 95% confidence become a fan of 1000 year climate HS, straight constant line or hey climate is getting warmer/cooler ascending/descending line – all of those various fan boys are on this blog. You know who you are.
Stat.s provides us the 95% confidence that the real no error natural temperature anomaly is in there somewhere but it is unknown where in MW Fig. 16. No one can prove any fan boy right or wrong based on last 1000 years of temperature proxy/instruments.
The point of all this is the proxies used in Mann et. al. 08 (or 98,99) do statistically little better at explaining the temperature trends than random noise. You can be a 95% confident HS devotee, coolista, warmista or lukewarmer and feel comfortable with 95% confidence that you cannot be proved wrong….or right.
‘Nate, the significance doesn’t change as you write. A hockey stick, a straight constant line, a descending or ascending line from left to right all fit the MW Fig. 16 with 95% confidence that nature does too.’
Show me that it fits with same significance. Declaring doesnt cut it.
You ignored what I wrote.
Does CI increase if I sample temperature monthly or weekly or daily? Yes or No?
Nate, see MW10 paper & Briggs post/comments at the link I gave for your answers on how CIs can increase since it is your interest. I did not ignore what you wrote.
If you understood CI and curve fitting you would be able to answer my simple question, Ball4, rather than sending me down a rabbit hole and ignoring my post.
Your question answers are your interest Nate, not mine. Jump in your rabbit hole and try find your answers. What I wrote is consistent with what I read jumping into this particular rabbit hole and other ones over time. Sometimes rabbits do have to be chased, but only the interesting ones.
“Although Mann’s paper ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age…”
From that very paper:
“Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period…”
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf
“…the IPCC should have caught that”
The IPCC reflected the science as it was known at the time. A perspective which subsequent research (30+ papers) from many different groups, using different proxies and moethods, has generally supported.
Let’s preempt the next myth too.
MYTH: The “hockey stick” graph cannot be validated because Mann refuses to disclose the materials used for publication.
FACT: The MBH98 data, methods, and source code have always been available for review.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
Did Wegman ever release his team’s data, methods, and source code in full?
Always been available? No that’s not quite fact, there was no contemporaneous archiving of the MBH98 code causing quite a subsequent commotion.
Note the dates in the file structure you link. The archiving is many years after the paper (~July 2005). Inspection of the source code you link requires source input files not at the existing archive. The code is not operational with only your link; perhaps you can find the input files later posted somewhere else if you want to stick to your point.
Fair point on “always”. I should have said at least at the time of the Wegman request. Wegman seemed to be satisfied (or least not dissatisfied) with the delivered materials at least in regards to what was delivered. However, Wegman did express concern that it was “not organized or documented in such a way that makes it practical for an outsider to replicate” and that “the directory and file structure Dr. Mann used are embedded in the code”. He did not express concern with anything being missing from what I read. I wonder if the “several websites” that were given to Wegman included datasets used by MBH, but not owned or maintained by MBH.
This does bring up an interesting issue. If public funds are used to provide products that require non-public datasets how does that get handled? Should it be a law that private entities or otherwise non-affiliated entities forfeit their IP rights if their products are used for publicly funded research? I don’t have an answer for that. Just throwing it out as a talking point.
Your Wegman clips seem to indicate he (or associates) didn’t try to replicate so, standing alone, indicates him being unaware of jneeded detail files missing from the archive. It’s been a long while since MBH98,99,08 was all litigated. I don’t recall any overall major improvement archiving published paper SI in this field though there has been limited movement in a better direction allowing replication here and there.
Society still looking for your better answers; survival of the fittest will be at play for a long time sorting out imo. There exists a complicated competition for limited funds, to publish preserving IP rights, journal compensation, public rights to the information, & much more which all compete. What you see out there is the current wild west compromise of academic capitalism & its required regulation with the rise of blogs, vlogs, tweets, FB, and of course, above and below the decency line, age old politics in public policy.
barry, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
barry…”The hockeystick canard is a zombie argument that no amount of head shots seems to put down”.
Now, according to myopic Barry, NAS is a zombie. NAS held a review of the paper and concluded it did not apply before 1600. The IPCC raised that to 1850. NAS told Mann et al they could not use pine bristlecone as a proxy for the 20th century, essentially negating the blade of the stick.
That was a NAS review infiltrated by climate alarmists who did not want to put Mann down too heavily. There was a time when an idiot like a climate alarmist would never get into NAS but one or two conned their way in and now NAS is long forgotten as a hallmrk of scientific endeavour.
Did you miss all that Barry? Or does your selective mind automatically filter it out? You are still in denial that the IPCC confirmed a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 and you can’t come to grips with a direct admission from NOAA that they slashed REPORTING global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Bindidon cannot understand the difference between a reporting station, that is, a station from which its data is actually used, and a surface station that simply records temperatures for no apparent reason. Since 1990, NOAA has discarded 90% of the data from those stations and uses climate models to fudge temperatures from stations that are there but never used.
I missed none of it. But you apparently missed the 30+ other temperature reconstructions since that broadly corroborate the hockeystick.
You’ve had years to figure out that the hockeystick shape has been a consistent feature regardless of what methods, what proxies, or who did the research, for two decades.
You are still stuck in news that is 15 years old. When will you start to catch up?
Here is a fairly comprehensive list of the relevant rsearch that happened after 1999, with the most recent paper in 2019.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
I trust you’ll educate yours….
Yeah, yeah, we both know that aint happening.
barry, please stop trolling.
binny…”My first question would be: Why doesnt Robertson at least have the courage to seek an explicit confrontation with Roy Spencer, who precisely calculates and publishes the trend of 0.14 C / decade for his own data what Robertson nonetheless allows himself to doubt?
Why does he not tell Roy Spencer that his trend computation is wrong?”
I have never claimed Roy’s computations are wrong. I think they are correct for a trend line from 1979 – 2020. I am questioning the meaning of the trend and UAH is a lot smarter than you at interpreting it.
From the 33 year report:
“While Earths climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”.
****
“Christy and other UAHuntsville scientists have calculated the cooling effect caused by the eruptions of Mexicos El Chichon volcano in 1982 and the Mt. Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991. When that cooling is subtracted, the long-term warming effect is reduced to 0.09 C (0.16 F) per decade, well below computer model estimates of how much global warming should have occurred”.
Even though Roy’s trend is indicated clearly, the subjective description describes periods of cooling and a long flat trend. Roy is not stupid, like you and other alarmists, he works within the bounds of science and he knows a trend is a trend. He does not agree with you on what the trend means.
Look at the pile of garbage above and see how confused the poor old man is:
“It’s not possible based on the shortness of the UAH record to make claims about an overall global warming.”
(YET)
“Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming.”
(AND YET)
“It’s obvious there has been a warming since 1979 but what does it mean?”
(Consistency of thought is clearly lacking here)
“Furthermore, working purely on a calculator or Excel program can be seriously misleading”
(Seriously difficult you mean– stick to your slide rule)
“All in all, the process stinks.”
(Wahhh!)
“The IPCC, and now NAS, has been infiltrated by alarmist scumbags.”
(Everybody is against me!- What a whiny infantile loser.)
I’m afraid you are not in a position to speak about what a trend “means” [sic] when you cannot even maintain a consistent position on whether a warming [trend] can even be said to exist over the period in question, or subsets thereof. As long as you are flailing about and asserting that UAH (1979-2020) is too short to make claims about warming, but 1997-2020 is long enough to make them, the unfortunate impression of intellectual incontinence will persist. Possibly exacerbated by dysentery and a few curries.
Trends don’t “mean” anything, by the way. They are quantitative and numeric, not semantic. In science, their role is to inform, confirm or disconfirm theory.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
binny…”2. Robertson has, though having been informed by many commentators in this blog, still no knowledge about how a linear trend is calculated.
Trends are based on ordinary least squares, and have nothing to do with any average, let alone with anomalies. They are exactly what he refuses to learn and accept: a best fit over a set of data points, e.g. ”
*********
Please allow me to edumacate you on some basic statistics. The linear trend line began as a visual guess of the average value between data points on a graph. You could eyeball the data and draw a line that you thought best-fit the data.
That trend line is a model, it’s an estimate of the actual average. The trick is to find the error between that estimate per data point and the actual value.
It’s all based on the definition of a line, where y = mx +b. If you have a point at x = 4 and y = 8 the equation becomes:
8 = 4m1 + b1
If you have another point nearby at (3,7) you have:
7 = 3m2 + b2
In other words a line in the first case would have slope m1 and intercept the y-axis at b1, and the in the 2nd case the slope of the line would be m2 with a y-intercept of b2.
Obviously these lines are not parallel and you want one line through many data points that has the same slope m and intercepts y at b. The line is a model and you want it to reflect the AVERAGE represented by the line.
An anomaly is the same thing as the y-variable in the line above. It needs the x-coordinate to establish time, in case of the UAH graph, but the y variable is the actual deviation from a monthly temperature from the x-axis.
This becomes a problem with simultaneous equations of the form y = mx + b. There is obviously an error between the real data point and the point represented by the line, a quantity called a residual. The idea is to make the sum of the squares of each residual as small as possible.
The value you want as a residual for example 1 above is to convert it to the form:
8 = 3m2 +b1 to the form:
[8 – 3m2 +b1]^2 where you are squaring the difference between the real point 8 minus the modelled point 3m2 + b1.
If you do that with a whole bunch of points, you can find the minimum using calculus and find the error in your modelled line. Least squares is a reference to a point of residual minima using a derivative in calculus.
That does not get around the obvious, that the trend is a straight line calculated from a guess then refined to determine the error between the modelled line and the real data. You can still do that by hand using the methodology I have described.
If you use a calculator or an Excel function, you miss all of that. The danger there is in missing what the data is trying to tell you. That’s why I refer to those using calculators or Excel without understanding the data, as bean-counters.
binny…”No red baseline here, and thus no rewarming below the baseline, no TRUE warming above the baseline. Only warming”.
That’s because you have no baseline, the baseline obviously being 0C. With absolute temperatures you don’t need a baseline, it’s only with anomalies that the baseline is required.
Here’s a real view of an absolute temperature scale. Look at figure 5 and see how insignificant global warming is on an absolute scale.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130511040419/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Gordo presents another denialist blast, as if those of us who have studied paleoclimate aren’t aware that the Earth has been in Ice Age conditions beginning around 3.3 million years BP. The author of your link insists on presenting the greatest temperature range from the Vostok core, comparing that range with just the past 40 years, ignoring the fact that polar temperatures exhibit an amplified temperature cycle not seen in global average data. The global average difference over the period of the Voseok core appears to be about 5 C colder.
Of course, Gordo can’t understand that averaging absolute temperatures will be meaningless, given the wide range of in those values due to seasonal and latitude, as well as the need to area weight the data.
We also find a plot from Loehle 2007, a completely botched report which had to be “corrected” immediately after it was published. The corrected version, published only a few months later, wasn’t a correction, but an entirely different approach which was not much better than the first, as I pointed out in a Letter to the Editor published in E&E.
“Obviously these lines are not parallel “
The slopes and intercepts in your examples are arbitrary. If I make the fairly obvious choice m1 = m2 = 1 and b1 = b2 = 4, then not only are the lines parallel, the lines are identical!
Or m1 = m2 = 0 and b1 = 8, b2 = 7. Again, the lines are parallel, but no longer identical.
“The value you want as a residual for example 1 above is to convert it to the form:
8 = 3m2 +b1 to the form:
[8 – 3m2 +b1]^2”
Your subscripts are jumbled. Did you mean m1 rather than m2? In any case, that is NOT what you want. You want a single m & b for all of the points, not separate m1,m2,m3, etc for each point.
Lets build on your example, using 4 points, to actually understand.
x, y
3, 7
3, 8
4, 8
4, 9
The least square fit line is y = 1x + 4.5.
“An anomaly is the same thing as the y-variable in the line above. ”
No.
* The y-variable in the line above is just the modeled fit. (7.5 @ x = 3 and 8.5 @ x = 4)
* The RESIDUALS are -0.5, 0.5, -0.5, 0.5 respectively.
* An anomaly is a difference from a baseline. In this case the standard baseline would be the average of all the y values = 8. The anomalies are -1, 0, 0, +1 respectively.
Note that I could choose a different baseline — the baseline is a convenience, not something forced on us by statistics. A different baseline would change the anomalies, but would not change the slope of the line nor the residuals.
Swanson, Tim, please stop trolling.
For a moment you could think that Robertson the ignorant now really managed, for the first time, to start looking a bit at what anomalies and trends really are, and how they are computed, and would stop writing his egocentric nonsense.
But, instead of accepting he was wrong all the time, he now tries to teach me about what I learned over 12 years ago, and proudly writes
” Please allow me to edu[ma]cate you on some basic statistics. ”
as if he had known all that since years.
But then, instead of trying to really grasp what Carl Gauss set up 200 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares
he returns to his psychotic urge to act as a great teacher.
Until yesterday, he still did not really understand how ordinary least squares are computed!
Please, Robertson!
– Stop to invent stuff according to your narrative all the time,
– simply learn how things really work,
and above all
– stop trying to educate others about what they know since much longer time than you do.
J.-P. D.
When I learnt the least squares method, Reagan and Thatcher were still in their first terms! Couldn’t explain it today without looking it up first to be on the safe side, of course. Google docs or LibreOffice do it just fine for everyday purposes, and Python has endless libraries for that kind of thing.
Let me try – an ordinary least squares linear regression is a claculation that derives a straight line through data points such that the sum of the squared distance between every data point and the line – is least.
We use squared values (distance squared) – because we get all positive residuals that can’t be summed any which way to hell to get a small error – just summing the distance (not squared) would give you infinite different lines that would all sum to a zero error.
Ordinary least squares gives a single result for the mean trend. And then you have to take uncertainty into account.
The function of a linear trend is limited, but its ubiquity in science is because it is a powerful filter to determine some basic things, such as “has there been any change?”
Well, THAT much I could explain. 🙂 In this case I mean, “Explain in sufficient detail that one could proceed to write the algorithm in code.”
Bindidon, Elliott, barry, please stop trolling.
For a little moment, I thought – and really hoped – that Robertson now really has grasped the relation between reference periods, baselines and anomalies…
But… I had overlooked this in his last comment:
” Thats because you have no baseline, the baseline obviously being 0C. With absolute temperatures you dont need a baseline, its only with anomalies that the baseline is required. ”
No, he didn’t understand how that works. He can’t have. Definitely not.
Bah. Does that really matter? no.
J.-P. D.
Ye gods…
Bindidon, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Upthread I discover a new prose from Robertson in which he replied to Svante:
” What is it about negative anomalies you donât understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere: it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins. ”
This is so dumb, so stubborn, so brazen, that it becomes delightful.
But… many people read this blog’s threads, and read the comments around them as well.
If you don’t contradict Robertson, all the silent readers accessing the blog soon or later will begin to take his brazenly unscientific stuff serious, and begin to believe he is right.
What motivates Robertson to believe that only positive anomalies can mean ‘true’ warming? Why does he not understand that a change of the reference period automatically changes the anomaly values wrt the x-axis, but without modifying the trend?
*
1. Here is a chart showing the UAH data as anomalies, as usual since years wrt the mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZC3f6rSC-9zA7cWNMa1NTc1a_ndK7LjH/view
So, according to Robertson, there is a recovery from cooling (a ‘rewarming’) between 1979 and 1995, and a TRUE warming [sic] which, he thinks, begins after the trend line passed the baseline.
*
2. But wait… some years ago, UAH’s reference period was quite different, namely 1979-1998.
This leads to a new 12-month vector, each month of it now containing the average of all corresponding months in the new period.
That gives us, out of the same absolute data, another anomaly chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_g0W7CnY4TTqSEzAiwZokj0PKjMn9JW/view
OMG! Now, again according to Robertson, the recovery from cooling is reduced by years, and ends already in 1989! The TRUE warming phase now has become outrageously long! Oh Noes.
*
3. So let’s save Robertson’s honor, by moving on to a baseline hopefully more pleasing to this genius: for example, 1990-2019.
We now obtain, still out of the same absolute data, a third chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H0s9JrnMqy4JjRUgkx0lLN2RTSm8Ivoq/view
Ha! Now, the recovery from cooling is extended, up to 2004! Great!
The TRUE warming is reduced to a decent minimum. Greater!
*
4. What will Robertson tell us, if he still enlightens us with his ‘science’ in the year 2035, the decent warming then is still the same as now, and Roy Spencer’s successor introduced, a few years before, WHO’s most recent reference period proposal, i.e. then 2001-2030 ?
*
But instead of accepting his mistake, Robertson probably will pretend that these graphs all are faked, and contain fudged UAH data.
He never will give up, and always will come here again and again with his spurious ideas.
Decades ago, I had to do with colleagues a la Robertson. Their motto, their fundamental attitude was:
– rather make assumptions than ask questions;
– never admit they are wrong;
– but claim at the right moment that they have in fact always supported what they fought so hard before.
Good grief!
J.-P. D.
” What is it about negative anomalies you don’t understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere: it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins.”
Incredible. Simply and utterly incredible.
A baseline is a quasi-arbitrary choice from which to make anomalies of the absolute data. We could lower the baseline to match the lowest anomaly and say that it is a warm system getting warmer, or we could match it to the highest anomaly and say it is a cool system that hasn’t yet achieved warmth.
And yet the data in real terms would be unchanged, and the trends that might be calculated from these data would all be exactly the same no matter where the baseline was. The arbitrary choice of baseline says nothing about the behaviour of the system, and the distribution of negative and positive anomalies as a result of baseline position is also arbitrary and the different signs of the values say nothing whatsoever about the behaviour of the system.
That Robertson gets this utterly basic understanding so bone-headedly wrong completely disqualifies any opinion he might have on related issues. It’s not a question of opinion, this is stats 101 he is failing in a glaringly obvious way. It’s primary school easy to get the concept, but Robertson doesn’t.
Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
A linear trend is meaningless for non-linear temperature data.
Also, CO2 levels have been rising since the trough of the Great Recession in 1932, so starting a trend in 1979 makes no sense.
The global average temperature is a statistic with low value – not one person lives in the average temperature.
Much more important are the details: Warming is mainly at high (cold) latitudes, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night.
That’s a different story than a single average.
Warmer winter nights in Alaska — is that bad news?
Our planet has mild multi-hundred year warming and cooling trends, according to ice core studies.
We’ve been in a warming trend since the 1690’s — the only other “choice” would be a cooling trend.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer warming and wish we had more global warming in Michigan, where we live.
You can have your linear trend line statistic — the actual climate where we live is important to us, not some global average statistic.
Dr. Spencer starts the trend in 1979 because that is the earliest year in which he had data. In other words he had no choice. If you want a trend to start in 1932 there are many datasets to choose from. I’ll recommend Berkeley Earth because the data and methods are easy to access.
The global mean surface temperatures is valuable. It is one of the defining metrics for global warming so it provides an essential test point for global warming hypothesis. It is also correlated with sea level, sea ice extents/area, and various other global properties.
From ice core evidence we do see variability in the implied global temperature. However, the contemporary warming era though perhaps not unprecedented is certainly anomalous in the record.
It does not matter what temperature trajectory I prefer. Mother nature does not listen to me, you, or anyone else. It acts only in accordance with the laws of nature. So your question of which one I prefer is completely irrelevant to this line of discussion.
What is the global warming hypothesis? Can it be verified experimentally, or is it too difficult?
BGDWX is a leftist propagandist. His job is to advance the agenda every day. I’m sure he gets paid well to do that.
I’m sure you get paid to take them down.
And my confidence on that is based on exactly the same amount of hard evidence as you have for your peurile announcement.
He’s definitely not a genuine commenter, that much is obvious. Could be a bot, doesn’t seem to possess many human qualities.
‘Could be a bot’
If referring to Amazing-MikeFlynn, then yes could be a bot.
If I did I’d do it more often.
A linear trend has limited, but powerful utility. It is a first order analysis to detect if there has been change, and to estimate how much change overall, within uncertainty limits.
No one is claiming the climate could or should change in a straight line, so no need to introduce any srtaw men into the discussion. And if one is going to explore non-linear trends, then the analysis has to be very rigorous. I’ve seen very little evidence of that for blog-level curve-fitters. No formal estimate, no uncertainites is the usual red flags.
barry, please stop trolling.
TLS dropped to 0.00C. The UAH record has 3 TLS spikes. The first two occurred because of volcanic activity. The most recent spike is hypothesized to have occurred because of the Australian wildfires. The first 2 spikes took several months to wane. It is difficult to draw conclusions from one data point, but this most recent spike early in 2020 and the subsequent drop in April is more rapid. If TLS continues to drop further then maybe the typical TLT cooling that we’ve seen succeed TLS spikes may not pan out. I had been expecting further declines in TLT this year. I may have to temper my expectations a bit.
Also noteworthy is that the TLS-TLT trend has increased to +0.42C/decade with this update.
For those that may not be familiar this metric is important because it eliminates some potential causes for the positive Earth energy imbalance and resultant near surface warming. For example…solar radiative forcing.
bdgwx
Thx, interesting.
It’s a bit late now at UTC+2, I’ll make a graphic out of it tomorrow.
J.-P. D.
The moon’s axial rotation arguments were much more interesting than talking about temperature trends month after month.
Hmmm. That’s a tough call. You could do a whole post on which would be more pointless.
The moon’s axial rotation arguments were a masterclass in showing how people refuse to doubt authority, even on the most simple issues. No advanced knowledge of physics was required, it truly was the most basic argument…so simple that people refused to accept it. Stunning levels of denial were displayed, and so much hatred as well. Psychologically fascinating.
Yeah, it shows how easy it is for DREMPT to screw up a simple problem.
Does the moon point in the same direction at all times?
Answer: No
Therefore the moon rotates.
The master baiter strikes again..
Noting that it was a ‘skeptic’ who dredged up this old argument yet again.
DREMT, please stop trolling.
Nobody is actually arguing about it, barry, so nothing has been dredged up.
Please stop trolling.
Weak.
Always takes more than one person to make an argument happen, barry. Crying “he started it”, is weak. Nobody is ever obliged to respond.
“so much hatred as well.”
Yet DREMT tries to dredge it back up.
#2
Always takes more than one person to make an argument happen, barry. Crying “he started it”, is weak. Nobody is ever obliged to respond.
“so much hatred as well”
“Nobody is ever obliged to respond.”
And yet, the head of our Dept of Hypocrisy is ever hopeful someone will take the bait.
#3
Always takes more than one person to make an argument happen, barry. Crying “he started it”, is weak. Nobody is ever obliged to respond.
You may have missed where a few months ago someone claimed (I think it may have been you) that it was ‘alarmists’ who kept bringing up the moon rotation argument. Just noting that it was a ‘skeptic’ that brought it up first here. I’ll note it next time, too.
‘Skeptics’ is in quotes this time because repeated behaviour of this kind – baiting people – is actually the behaviour of a troll.
Don’t be a troll, DREMT.
Indeed, barry, I think the person who has brought up the Moon’s axial rotation argument more than anyone else has been Bindidon. I brought it up this time, because I was bored. And I may bring it up again, in future. No doubt you will bitch and whine every time, and I’ll look forward to it.
Either way, it takes more than one person to make an argument.
You brought it up to stir the pot. You have avowed that you write “please stop trolling” because you like to provoke reactions for your amusement.
The very definition of an internet troll.
You are a troll. I guess that’s ok by you.
“You brought it up to stir the pot”
No barry, I brought it up because it’s a subject I find more interesting than repetitively discussing temperature trends on a month by month basis.
“You have avowed that you write “please stop trolling” because you like to provoke reactions for your amusement.”
Where did I avow that, barry?
Right here on this blog.
I write ‘please stop trolling’ because:
1) It amuses me (especially how seriously people like you seem to take it).
~DREMT
You are a troll. I guess you must like being a troll.
Yes, it amuses me that you take it so seriously. That’s not the same thing as doing something to provoke a reaction. You’ve read something into it that isn’t there.
Repatedly spamming a discussion forum with the same thing over and over for fun is exactly what trolls do. That you do it for your own amusement, and “especially” for how people react to it is the very definition of a troll.
You like being a troll, so there’s nothing can be done to get you to stop behaving like one.
Well there wouldn’t be much point in me writing “please stop trolling” over and over again if I didn’t get any enjoyment from doing it, now would there?
Do you think it’s honest behaviour for you not to link to the full comment, thus removing all the reasons after number 1) from the table? Come on barry, that’s a troll move.
“if I didnt get any enjoyment from doing it”
Is it really enjoyment that your OCD behaviors provide?
Compulsively touching all metal objects? Could lead to an infection.
#2
Well there wouldn’t be much point in me writing “please stop trolling” over and over again if I didn’t get any enjoyment from doing it, now would there?
Do you think it’s honest behaviour for you not to link to the full comment, thus removing all the reasons after number 1) from the table? Come on barry, that’s a troll move.
word
#3
Well there wouldn’t be much point in me writing “please stop trolling” over and over again if I didn’t get any enjoyment from doing it, now would there?
Do you think it’s honest behaviour for you not to link to the full comment, thus removing all the reasons after number 1) from the table? Come on barry, that’s a troll move., thats a troll move.
The other reasons are immaterial.
I remembered correctly. You like what your trolling provokes in people.
That is “especially” why you do it.
You list this reason at number one.
You are a troll. Accept it.
You are not correctly representing my words, barry.
It seems to me, that no one is buying the Lefty Utopia of the Green New Deal.
And more people are realizing that alternative energies are a scam, and that they are having bad environmental consequences.
One could say that alternative energy schemes, do nothing to lower CO2 emission {and I would argue have increased CO2 emission} but one could argue that there could be a significant concern in regards of future global energy needs.
I would say, if you are focused mostly on CO2 emissions, that one’s only solution lies with nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is also a safer and cleaner way to make electrical energy, and think that would more important than the aspect of lower CO2 emissions.
One could argue that US, doesn’t have a near future energy problem- and what I mean by near future is within next 100 years.
Whereas China does have near future energy problem, but it seems a large part of China’s problem will be solved by developing more nuclear energy- which they are doing- and so is India.
It seems the future energy needs are mostly about getting countries out poverty, it appears that nations wanting to get out poverty, the most in the future will be the nations in Africa {and assortment of other nations, but keep it simple, we could focus on Africa]. One say from outsider prospective that China still has large problem with poverty, but their government plan does not seem focused doing much about, now, or in near future. Whereas with India, it seems that resolving poverty remains a strong focus, mainly because it’s a democracy and seems to only continue to grow as a democracy.
Or China seems it will replace coal power generation with nuclear energy, and India will mostly add nuclear energy {and of course will get other energy sources}
Of course it seems likely that with China and India focusing on nuclear energy, that that could “export” nuclear technology to countries in Africa in the coming decades.
Anyhow, I am not big fan of nuclear energy, mostly because tends to be governments being the energy provider. And I tend think governments can have huge capacity be very stupid- and careless.
This is not so much the case in US or even Europe, rather it’s more of a matter of, excessive involvement by government.
gbaikie…”It seems to me, that no one is buying the Lefty Utopia of the Green New Deal”.
Who said Greens are lefties? I regard them as being comprised of loonies from across the political spectrum, like uber right-winger Schwarzeneggar when he was governor of California. It was an uber right-wing local government in the Canadian province of BC that imposed a fuel carbon tax, as well as a fuel transit tax, forcing motorists to support public transit.
And who said you can label lefties? True lefties are socialists who want nothing to do with the nonsense in Stalinist Russia and the current regime in China. I’m a leftie and I am totally pro-Democracy. I have no time for the current dictatorship mentality currently sweeping the world re this phantom virus.
In fact, I support Trump in many ways over the sour-grapes, wishy-washy Democrats who are anything but left-wingers. I regard the Democrats and our federal government here in Canada as politically-correct annoyances that we must hold our noses and bear in a Democratic country. They represent the lunatic fringe of do-gooders who cannot wait to stick their noses into the business of others.
–May 5, 2020 at 7:21 PM
gbaikie…”It seems to me, that no one is buying the Lefty Utopia of the Green New Deal”.
Who said Greens are lefties? I regard them as being comprised of loonies from across the political spectrum, like uber right-winger Schwarzeneggar when he was governor of California. It was an uber right-wing local government in the Canadian province of BC that imposed a fuel carbon tax, as well as a fuel transit tax, forcing motorists to support public transit.–
I don’t just blame lefties for raising taxes. We can assume that all politicans, including “read my lips, I won’t raise taxes” will raise taxes. I would not vote for libertarian, because I imagined, it would not raise taxes. I would not call Schwarzeneggar a uber right-winger, incompetent, a weenie, a dolt, seem to sum him up.
If had to pick anyone, who cause California to be a one state party {dem} it would be Schwarzeneggar, mainly because a Rep can be competent, and no one, can say Schwarzeneggar was competent.
“And who said you can label lefties? True lefties are socialists who want nothing to do with the nonsense in Stalinist Russia and the current regime in China. I’m a leftie and I am totally pro-Democracy. I have no time for the current dictatorship mentality currently sweeping the world re this phantom virus.”
Well, if nothing else this pandemic, is going to reveal pols for what they are. Surprisingly, the California Governor seems to have recovered from appearing to be dead stupid, and could come out of this doing quite well. It seems to be that challenges can make people {pols} do a better job. Though one trust that others are going to fold under pressure.
“In fact, I support Trump in many ways over the sour-grapes, wishy-washy Democrats who are anything but left-wingers. I regard the Democrats and our federal government here in Canada as politically-correct annoyances that we must hold our noses and bear in a Democratic country. They represent the lunatic fringe of do-gooders who cannot wait to stick their noses into the business of others.”
On topic of Canadians, you guys should make sure that you are not deficient in Vitamin D. Your sun at noon, probably provides it, but apparently, the sun nearer the horizon, doesn’t. Don’t need to get a tan, but get some {btw, sunscreen blocks it}.
gbaikie…”On topic of Canadians, you guys should make sure that you are not deficient in Vitamin D. Your sun at noon, probably provides it, but apparently, the sun nearer the horizon, doesn’t. Don’t need to get a tan, but get some {btw, sunscreen blocks it}”.
Damned if you do (skin cancer) and damned if you don’t (vitamin D deficiency). My trade off is to take 2 x 1000 IU (25 mcg) vitamin D3 tablets at least every other day.
You can acquire cabin fever pretty easily up here, especially on the west coast where the sky is overcast much of the winter. It doesn’t seem to bother me one way or another, although sitting in front of a computer rather than being out in the fresh air and the elements is not very natural.
Then again, we don’t have the smog issues of US cities like LA. And we don’t have to worry about going out for a walk in the evening. Attended a convention her in Vancouver many years ago attended by people from all over the States. Many commented on the freedom they felt here to walk around freely at all hours of the night. They claimed they never even think about that back home.
I think it’s interesting that the headline is that we’ve had a big drop since February.
In the last 12 months we’ve had
– the 4th warmest April on record
– the 3rd warmest March on record
– the 2nd warmest February on record
– the 2nd warmest January on record
– the warmest December on record
– the warmest November on record
– the 2nd warmest October on record
– the warmest September on record
– the 3rd warmest August on record
– the 3rd warmest July on record
– the 2nd warmest June on record
– the 5th warmest April on record
All of that was without an el Nino.
Yes, when ‘skeptics’ protest that ‘warmists’ make too much of month to month changes when its warming, viola! Here is a leading skeptic announcing a record-breaking 2 month drop.
I wonder how many people realize that this is a weather, not climate phenomenon. I have no doubt that the author knows the difference.
IF global temperature were to magically stay at this month’s average temperature [for forever} then there was no global warming.
If take high peak temperature and were to magically stay at that month’s average- forever then there was some global warming, though one could argue about when it “mostly” started.
But any global warming that is “worth” anything as an idea, is significant future warming {which hasn’t happened yet].
And it’s similar to the plague from China, the concern is will it get worst than it’s already been.
Or some think if we remove all “lockdown measures” in the US tommorrow, then is we get twice as much deaths and twice as much serious illness within the near future. And near future would be
by say, Sept 2020.
Or present situation is not the effect more 1 year in the future, rather it’s months in the future- whether it’s less 2 months or as much as 6 months.
Or “forever” with Chinese virus is about +1 year, with climate is practically about 20 years. As within 12 years we are DOOMED.
Though one could say within 50 years we are “really doomed!”
Or “forever” from climate could be as much as 50 years and “forever” for virus could be 2-3 years.
But one could say the focus with Chinese virus is mostly months, which some claiming could be worse then what we already have experienced. Though of course part of what have experienced is crash in economic activity, and many suffering from this imposed hardship {and some aren’t having much suffering- a little inconvenient, is what I count it as}.
Now if we end national lockdown tomorrow, and is not much of consequent of lifting it, then people are going to question whether the lockdown was “worth it” but mostly they will backseat drive, the chosen route taken- imagining if only did —— it would have been better.
But what is important now and in the future, is the prediction of what happened if end lockdown now, or in 2 weeks from now, and how it’s done- rip off bandage, or take gradual cautious steps to test the waters, before ending completely the lockdown.
Which nation are you talking about?
The irony of a successful lockdown is that the numbers stay low and critics then announce that there was no problem, giving nature the credit for wise human decision-making.
What is a successful lockdown? Who or what is locked down? How would you gauge success? You clearly havent given the matter any thought. Try again, but use at least a modicum of logic.
Too early to know what a successful lockdown looks like, usually one quarantine the people infected- and not entire nations- and the entire world.
One could say that China pretty used to being in lockdown- and kicked out news reporters and going absolute total state propaganda.
As is widely known, China’s military future is planning bioweapons, space dominance, and cyber warfare as key to future wars.
Their space dominance is not working very well, but cyberwarfare is looking pretty good, and we will see about their bioweapon efforts.
But personally, I think nukes work pretty good, but of course there number of steps to take before we get to nuking them from orbit.
Though some people seem to forget, there is more than one country in the world. Countries that have had different responses at different stages of the pandemic, and we can compare them.
Success = fewer deaths from the disease. A complicating factor is the economic repercussions of various policies to contain the pandemic.
Do you have anything cogent to add, or have some half-read articles given you some some half-formed ideas that wiltingly prop up your vacuuous condescension? All evidence points to the latter, at best, but one day you may surprise us and say something intelligent instead of merely belligerent.
That last post to ‘Amazed.’
b,
Fewer deaths than what? A model? An assumption? Check out Belarus and Sweden. Trot out your excuses, and Ill give you some that wont fit your excuses either. Try some more alarmism.
I’ve been watching Sweden, because at one point its figures were very similar to Australia’s on the same day. Of particular note after time and quite different approaches is the very different death rate, although Sweden’s case numbers have also taken off compared to Australia’s. There are various factors to account for, but the difference is stark enough to say with some cponfidence that more stringent restrictions prevent infections and death.
Perhaps you have something coherent to say about that instead of the usual hot air.
Confirmed cases
Australia 6,875
Sweden 23,918
Total deaths
Australia 97
Sweden 2941
Death rate
Australia 1.4%
Sweden 12%
Total tests
Australia 688,656
Sweden 148,500
Tests per capita
Australia 1 in 37 people
Sweden 1 in 68 people
Date of first SARS CoV2 fatality
Australia March 1
Sweden March 11
Both countries had roughly the same number of cases on March 24. Both countries had similar fatalitites early March.
I think there are quite a few Americans on this board, so I looked at the numbers for that country. Top of the list for infections (1.2 million) and total number of tests (8 million), and total fatalities (74,799). The death rate is 6%.
Anyone familiar with stats and the various factors will understand the strong caveats on the numbers. Of course, those folk won’t include anyone telling people to check the figures for other countries, as if somehow when they speak the figures magically get more certain.
And Belarus? While you are at it, remember that influenza epidemics tend to be more severe in winter. Australia and Sweden seasons are reversed. If you are going to say that corona viruses are not season sensitive, ask why colds and influenza like illnesses are more common in winter. Corona virus is responsible for many colds.
Alarmists comparing apples to oranges. Try comparing Sweden (minimal lockdown) with USA, UK, Italy, Spain. Now tell me how many lives your lockdown saved. For more confusion, look at deaths per capita, and draw your conclusions. The future is unknowable.
Flu season in Australia is April to August. COVID infection rate dropped precipitously through April, as did the death rate.
Do you ever check what you say?
US, UK, Italy and Spain were slow to get their lockdowns going. UK was going on about herd immunity while numbers rose, then they changed their tune and slowed the cases with lockdown. Italy had already been well-infected before they imposed lockdown. Same with Spain. And their citizens were not very compliant to begin with (that changed). Go ahead and compare cases and fatalitites with dates that lockdown and other measures were mandated. For example, Italy initiated partial lockdown early March, and imposed the strongest restrictions country wide on March 21. Have a guess what date the infection rates declined from?
You do the numbers for Belarus. You can find all the data you need by searching worldometer coronavirus. That’s all the help I’m giving you, lazybones.
Beg pardon: a near-record breaking 2 month drop.
Correction: the last month in the list should be May, not April.
– the 5th warmest MAY on record
When are RSS and UAH going to resolve their big differences?
Its like when the heavyweight boxing title got confusing with various WBA WBC QED titles.
Are we just going to have to accept that there is no undisputed LT temperature trend?
Nate, Which “big differences” are you looking at?
The RSS TLT series is based on a different base period than the UAH. The RSS data excludes the areas over the Antarctic from 70s to the South Pole and over regions with high mountains, while UAH includes these regions. The RSS TLT is calculated from only one channel of data, their TMT, while the UAH LT is a weighted mixture of MT, TP and LS data and the processing of those channels is different than the RSS TMT.
There are other differences in approach and processing as well, so I wouldn’t expect then to agree.
We get that RSS-TLT and UAH-TLT are fundamentally different. The problem is UAH-TLT is +0.135C/decade while RSS-TLT is +0.212C/decade. That’s a huge difference even considering the fundamental differences.
Yes well put.
‘he RSS TLT is calculated from only one channel of data, their TMT, while the UAH LT is a weighted mixture of MT, TP and LS data and the processing of those channels is different than the RSS TMT.’
If a result is so sensitive to analysis method, then it is not very useful to science.
I suggest that the proper question is: “Which analysis yields the most accurate result”. Don’t forget that there are also other groups and other analytical techniques, it’s not just UAH vs. RSS, though it’s correct that a “Lower Troposphere” analysis is only provided by those two, as far as I am aware.
The original TLT from UAH was a correction to the MSU Channel 2 data, which was influenced by the known stratospheric cooling. There are other ways to “correct” the channel 2 data, such as the TTT from Washington State. RSS also provides a TTT series on their web site, for which the latest global trend is 0.176 K/decade.
All of these efforts must also be corrected for orbital drift in LECT and orbital decay, which makes combining the data from some 13 satellites difficult. With the UAH LT approach, three channels must be combined, including MSU channel 3, which had some serious problems in early years, so much so that RSS TTS data doesn’t start until 1987.
“Both datasets are pretty good and I’ve advocated using the average of the two for a way to decrease the random error contained in both datasets and to reduce the effect of any unforeseen biases we each may have inflicted upon our datasets”
John Christy
Mua bán, nick facebook, cung cấp, tài khoản, facebook, mua, acc facebook. …http://taikhoan.co
Copernicus published the April report.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-april-2020
April-2020 came in at +0.70 which is a slight uptick from March-2020.
The ERA 2mT trend is +0.19C/decade.
“Long-lasting, record-setting heat is roasting zone from California to Texas”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/05/southwest-record-heat/
As the article states, weather. Are you being alarmist?
That is what upper level ridges do.
The FMA ONI value came in at 0.5. That means we are officially in El Nino though it’s just about as weak as an El Nino can get. In fact, assuming the MAM value comes in < 0.5 then the 2020 El Nino will be the weakest since at least 1950.
b,
Or, not assuming . . . . More pointless speculation masquerading as fact?
The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will have to wear a parachute just looking at it
Comment saved. Please nominate a point in the future when you think your prediction will be apparent. We’ll check then.
I’ve made a note as well, although I’ll probably not be organised enough to come back and embarrass Eben with it later. I’ve long since lost count of these claims that it’ll start cooling TOMORROW. I used to go out deep-sea fishing as a kid, and there was a plate on the cabin saying “Free Beer Tomorrow”. I keep wondering if any of these deniers were on board with me at the time.
Missed opportunity, if so – ground bait is always useful.
Perhaps it is no surprise that most deniers are also fundies and creationists; Christianity is basically the 2,000-year-old collective conviction that those currently living will see the apocalypse in their lifetimes. They’ve just inverted it to deny the one that’s actually started.
barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.
averagejon…”n the last 12 months we’ve had
– the 4th warmest April on record
– the 3rd warmest March on record
– the 2nd warmest February on record”
Are you talking about the fudged NOAA/GISS records, which are set using climate models and by eliminating regions with cooler temperatures? For example, NOAA has only 3 reporting stations in California, all of them along the warmer coast. The have one in Canada covering the entire Arctic. And the colder temperatures at high altitude in Bolivia have been eliminated with Bolivia being given a temperature based on averaging temperatures from warmer nearby locales.
With regard to your claims above, you could have fooled me based on my experience in the Vancouver, Canada region. Normally we have mild winters due to the Japanese current but this year our winter was dominated by record cold spells. Even now, in May, the temperatures continue to be below average.
Are you talking about the fudged NOAA/GISS records, which are set using climate models and by eliminating regions with cooler temperatures?
GISTEMP does not use a GCM.
You can find the source code here.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v4/
Maybe you can help me now. Where do I find UAH’s source code?
For example, NOAA has only 3 reporting stations in California, all of them along the warmer coast.
Weird. When I got to the NCEI website and search for stations in California I see like 500 of them.
bdg…”GISTEMP does not use a GCM.”
GISS does, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen of GIS are/were climate modelers.
“When I got to the NCEI website and search for stations in California I see like 500 of them”.
Of course, but NOAA only uses 3 of them in their calculations. I posted a link several times to a direct admission by NOAA that they have slashed their reporting surface stations GLOBALLY from 6000 to less than 1500. If they were using all the 500 stations you claim, 1/3rd of their reporting stations would be in California.
According to chiefio, GHCN has slashed the reporting stations by 90% since 1990.
The Canadian Arctic has many more stations than are used by NOAA. They were using only the station at Eureka, to cover the entire Arctic, last time I looked.
Yes. Hansen does modelling studies. That is something different from the GISTEMP dataset.
Yes. NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, etc. all use a subset of the available stations. If you have reason to believe using all of the stations will significantly change the result then you test that hypothesis. I don’t think you’re going to see much of a difference. The reason I don’t think you’ll see a difference is because reanalysis assimilates many more surface observations plus observations of varying types and varying levels of the atmosphere and the warming trend from those isn’t significantly different. For example…the ERA trend since 1979 is 0.1901C/decade and the Berkeley Earth trend is 0.1898C/decade. ERA assimilates tens of millions of observations every day while BEST is a mere fraction of that. It just doesn’t matter.
The link you have provided many times does not say what you says it does. That is your very own paraphrasing. Here, for the dozenth time, is what they actually say.
“The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
I’ve looked and looked, and nowhere do I see NOAA “admitting” that it “slashed” thousands of stations.
That is entirely your spin – and it is wrong because the stations weren’t slashed, the vast majority remain in the GHCN database, and the reason there is thousands more in the past than the present is that only a subset is updated in real-time, and the majority of stations have been added retrospectively.
Which is explained in the source material Chiefio first copied the graph from many years ago…
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
“Because most instrumental networks were established to monitor local weather and not the long-term climate, there are practical problems in using these data to study climate change. For instance, the records are often not digitized and/or are not readily available outside of the country in which they were measured…
This is not some post-facto rationalization, either. This is the 1997 description of how NOAA acquired historical data for GHCN. Read on and learn.
“When possible, we tapped related projects for potentially useful data. For example, N.C.D.C recently collected and processed station normals for the period 1961-90 as a contribution to WMO (WMO 1996a). On occasion, a WMO member country supplied year/month sequential data in addition to the 30-yr means and other statistics. Upon receipt of such records, the member country was contacted in regard to contributing the time series data to GHCN. The Colonial Era Archives initiative was also tapped in this regard (Peterson and Griffiths 1996). Started as a GHCN subproject to acquire data in very data sparse regions, this initiative digitized early temperature and precipitation records for stations operated by various European countries in their respective overseas colonies. Data for hundreds of early African stations have been incorporated from this source and the digitizing effort has been expanded to Asia and South America (Peterson and Griffiths 1997)…
Pray tell how Colonial Era archives are able to be updated? Answer, they can’t be, they are archives. And this is the form of the majority of the addition to GHCN in 1997. One-time additions that could not be updated, like the then 1500 stations that could be updated regularly. Read on.
“The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago.”
How many years have you continued to promulgate falsehood about this? The great majority of GHCN station data was never available in real time and can’t be updated like the core group stations’ data that NOAA acquires monthly.
The reason there is more data than just the group that regularly update is that NOAA went back through archives and digitised millions of data records.
The irony is that you think stations were ‘slashed’, when in fact, they were added retrospectively. And because you can’t put this together in your brain for some strange reason, you have repeated this dirty little smear for years.
This has been explained to you more than 20 times, with references and links to your own source and the actual source document that first provided and explained changes in station count.
Chiefio has walked back his comments on deliberate deletion, as I have quoted and linked for you before, but it seems some perculiarly targeted dementia has sapped your memory there, too.
“Are you talking about the fudged NOAA/GISS records, which are set using climate models and by eliminating regions with cooler temperatures?”
Cooler temperatures or COOLING temperatures? Before you start your futile search to find evidence that would support your drivel such that anyone would take it seriously, you should take into account that conspiracy ideation is ill-supported by a confusion between a lack of warmth and a lack of warming.
bdgwx, barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Dremt…”The moons axial rotation arguments were much more interesting than talking about temperature trends month after month”.
What argument? I thought we had settled conclusively that the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Of course, as you claim, there are those who have such a strong appeal to authority they can never look at the facts for themselves.
I just found people’s inability to accept that fascinating.
Yes you also “thought we had settled conclusively” that HIV virus has never been found and does not cause AIDS.
What both of you thought/think has been settled, was settled decades ago, but oppositely to your delusions.
Indeed. I wonder how he explains that the Moon can keep facing the Earth without rotating?
It is rotating – about the Earth/Moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. If it were rotating on its own axis at the same time, we would see all sides of the Moon from Earth.
Elliot, DREMT has been long confused about orbiting and rotating on an axis being independent mechanics. If the moon were rotating on its own axis at any different rate than current, only then would we see all sides of the Moon from Earth.
Orbiting and rotating on an axis are indeed independent mechanics. The Moon is just “orbiting”.
Except Astronomers have identified the two axes that the moon orbits and rotates around, and they are not parallel.
So the moon therefore rotates on its axis as it revolves around the earth on another different axis.
Maybe those who don’t get this should inquire about attending their local junior high school.
The moon “orbits” about a barycenter – a point, not an axis.
Nobody said the moon couldn’t have a bit of “up/down” wobble (libration of latitude) and “side/side” wobble (libration of longitude) whilst it orbits. After all, the moon isn’t held in place by a rigid rod. It’s just gravity doing its thing, as best it can, but it’s not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.
Nope it’s not around a point, it’s around a line because it orbits along a plane which is perpendicular to axis of revolution.
The longitudinal libration is because the moon revolves in an elliptical orbit so it doesn’t orbit and rotate at the same speed.
Say something else that is wrong that shows you don’t understand the orbit of the moon.
Yes blob, the libration of longitude is an apparent East-West wobble (side to side, like I said) as viewed from the Earth over time. It’s good that you’re learning some of the basics, finally. No, the moon definitely orbits the Earth-moon barycenter, which is a point and not a line/axis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
“In astronomy, the barycenter is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit.”
You need the axis to fully describe the orbit, which is in a plane perpendicular to the axis.
Saying the moon orbits the earth moon barycenter isn’t telling the whole story.
You are trying to describe the phenomenon of lunar obliquity. There is no orbital axis, but if you were to draw a line through the moon perpendicular to its orbital plane then that line deviates by the line going through the moon’s north and south “poles” by six degrees or so. That is the lunar obliquity. This has been determined by studying the libration of latitude from Earth, and from knowledge of the deviation of the moons orbital plane from the ecliptic.
You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south “pole” for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did. Then, with knowledge of how the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic plus the observations of the moon’s libration of latitude, if present, you could determine the lunar obliquity…and this is all in a moon that you would consider not to be rotating on its own axis. Therefore axial rotation is not proven by lunar obliquity.
“You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south ‘pole’ for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did.”
“would appear to rotate” ‘pole’ ‘if indeed they did’
Or, much simpler and less erroneous: this is compelling evidence that it does rotate around real poles.
It reminds me of the great lengths they went to with the whole development of epicycles, to avoid the much simpler Sun-centered model, because it conflicted with what became their religious belief.
There are planned missions to land near these imaginary lunar ‘poles’.
Bob, You should ask him how we know where these lunar poles even are, if it has no rotational axis.
Since it is a rotational axis that DEFINES where a planet’s poles are.
#2
You are trying to describe the phenomenon of lunar obliquity. There is no orbital axis, but if you were to draw a line through the moon perpendicular to its orbital plane then that line deviates by the line going through the moon’s north and south “poles” by six degrees or so. That is the lunar obliquity. This has been determined by studying the libration of latitude from Earth, and from knowledge of the deviation of the moons orbital plane from the ecliptic.
You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south “pole” for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did. Then, with knowledge of how the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic plus the observations of the moon’s libration of latitude, if present, you could determine the lunar obliquity…and this is all in a moon that you would consider not to be rotating on its own axis. Therefore axial rotation is not proven by lunar obliquity.
Or stand on the moon and watch the stars rotate in the sky.
The poles are where the stars rotate in a circle straight above you.
Exactly, Svante…there are many such ways to determine where the “poles” might be, which don’t involve any proof of axial rotation. Just the way the moon moves in its orbit.
Yes, it will be very obvious when you stand there.
You are absolutely still, but the universe is rotating around you.
No, not at all. Of course your location would be changing wrt the fixed stars, since orbital motion necessitates such a change of orientation. You would be on the moon, which is moving around in a big ellipse. Nobody is arguing that it faces the same fixed star throughout this motion.
“The poles are where the stars rotate in a circle straight above you.”
Yes Svante. And the Moon has an AXIAL TILT of 6.67 degrees.
Not sure how it can have an axial tilt without an axis. But Im sure DREMT can manage it.
Rotation happens when there is angular velocity relative to an inertial reference frame. A reference frame fixed on the stars is inertial. The Moon has angular velocity on that reference frame. Therefore the Moon is rotating.
There would be a similar problem if you said a passenger in a car was not accelerating because you arbitrarily decided to use the non-inertial reference frame fixed on the car. Same fallacy; just with translation instead of rotation in this case.
“Rotation happens when there is angular velocity relative to an inertial reference frame. A reference frame fixed on the stars is inertial. The Moon has angular velocity on that reference frame. Therefore the Moon is rotating.”
Already covered this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469405
bdgwx, DREMT’s continual confusion was already pointed out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469500
…and I immediately set you straight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469556
-The Moon has an orbital axis.
-The Moon has a SEPARATE rotational axis.
-This axis determines where its poles are.
-There is an axial tilt of 6.67 degrees between the rotational axis and the orbital axis.
-On the Moon the stars move in circles around the rotational axis, not the orbital axis.
-Concepts like POLES and AXIAL TILT cannot even be defined without a rotational axis.
These are the facts that are universally agreed upon.
There is no amount of hand-waving gobbledegook that DREMT can give that can explain these facts as ‘JUST ORBITING’.
We’ve been thru all this before. The rerunning of this argument tape turns out the same everytime, and DREMT is wrong each time.
For completeness another couple of Moon facts.
-The Moons rotational angular velocity around its rotational axis is CONSTANT due to conservation of angular momentum.
-The Moons orbital angular velocity around its orbital axis is NOT FIXED, due to its elliptical orbit varying its distance from its orbital axis.
-As a result, we do not see the same face of the Moon. The longitudinal range that we see varies during its orbit. The Moon wobbles side-to-side.
DREMT will declare that he can explain these facts as JUST ORBITING, but he never actually does.
#2
and I immediately set you straight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469556
Yes we have heard:
“The Moon is just ‘orbiting’.” is your declaration.
But once again it can’t explain the facts, as noted above.
As Feynman said, if your theory doesnt agree with observations, its wrong.
Now repeat your declaration as much as you want, but it won’t change the facts.
#3
and I immediately set you straight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469556
You were right Nate, he did repeat his empty declaration.
Oh, I see your confusion. No, I no longer communicate with commenter “Nate”. If I see he has written a comment to me, I simply repeat whatever my previous comment was, regardless of context. I keep doing this until he stops responding to me.
It’s proving quite effective so far.
I see, very clever of you.
Comparatively so, I guess, thanks.
Compared to how dumb you have to be to keep responding to somebody you know isn’t communicating with you any more.
He’s ‘not responding’ by responding. Tricky that.
#2
Comparatively so, I guess, thanks.
Compared to how dumb you have to be to keep responding to somebody you know isnt communicating with you any more.
I don’t need a response to point out the flaws in your arguments. You have no sensible answers anyway.
#3
Comparatively so, I guess, thanks.
Compared to how dumb you have to be to keep responding to somebody you know isnt communicating with you any more.
Do not feed the troll.
Yes, don’t respond to barry. For anyone else that’s interested in the subject, these should help you get up to speed:
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-follow-up
..
No sports on right now, so they just showing reruns of old classic games.
DREMT has this idea.
But he keeps rerunning the same lopsided losses that weve all seen a dozen times.
He keeps hoping against hope that this time around they will turn out different.
But, of course reality never changes. Basic physics hasnt been revised.
These are not classics. And booooring….
#2
Yes, dont respond to barry. For anyone else thats interested in the subject, these should help you get up to speed:
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-follow-up
When you gonna grow up?
#3
Yes, dont respond to barry. For anyone else thats interested in the subject, these should help you get up to speed:
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-follow-up
Richard Greene…”Much more important are the details: Warming is mainly at high (cold) latitudes, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night”.
Don’t forget the most important metric. The warming ‘spots’ in the Arctic move around month to month.
The archives of UAH temperature contour maps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
March 2020….note all the blue around the North Pole:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/march/202003_map.png
April 2019:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/April2019/201904_map.png
barry…”And yet the data in real terms would be unchanged, and the trends that might be calculated from these data would all be exactly the same no matter where the baseline was”.
Without a baseline there are no anomalies. An anomaly is a departure from an average over a range.
When you look at each anomaly on the UAH graph, the anomaly temperature is meaningless. They cannot be translated into absolute temperatures. Each anomaly is relative to the defined baseline.
If you defined the baseline on the year 1998, with a global average well above average, anomalies from ensuing years would all be below the baseline, except for 2016. On the other hand, if you defined the baseline on cooler years, as is the practice of NOAA and GISS, anomalies from ensuing years would appear warmer than they are.
Of course the anomalies can be translated back into absolute temperatures! You work out the average absolute temmperature for the baseline period, and then add that value to each anomaly and viola! You have your absolute global temps back. It’s not even hard. GISS give you the absolute value somewhere on their pages. Maybe the other institutions do the work for you. Roy has probably done so, somewhere, and Bindidon is able to give you the value by examining the UAH data files. The information is all public domain.
This nonsense about warming not “truly beginning” until anomalies turn positive is just incredibly wrong and stupid. The baseline does not define the actual system as being ‘cold’ or ‘warm’ just because of the sign of the anomalies. You can’t use anomalies for quantitave judgements like that. They are useful for plotting the behaviour of the system.
If you drop the baseline by 10 degrees C, what changes? Nothing. The change from one data point to another remains the same, and the trends derived from those data remain exactly the same. You’d be an idiot to say that the system was now “incredibly” warm, just because the baseline made it look so.
Bah! Incredulity causes typos:
You cant use anomalies for qualitative judgements like that.
GR said: If you defined the baseline on the year 1998, with a global average well above average, anomalies from ensuing years would all be below the baseline, except for 2016. On the other hand, if you defined the baseline on cooler years, as is the practice of NOAA and GISS, anomalies from ensuing years would appear warmer than they are.
No. It does not matter where you put the baseline. The anomaly values are not cooler or warmer either way.
Think about it this way. F and C are both anomaly based scales themselves. F is baselined on the freezing point of a salt brine solution whereas C is baselined on the freezing point of pure water. Is 32F warmer than 0C because Fahrenheit decided to use a cooler baseline vs. Celsius’ baseline? No, of course not.
Gordo, It’s well known that the satellite brightness temperature anomalies can be converted back to “absolute”(??) temperatures. UAH provides the average temperature data, which even you could add to the monthly zonally averaged data to make the reversion.
And, as I’ve pointed out before, the short term month-to-month variation in anomaly values aren’t important, it’s the trend of the time series which tells us what’s happening.
barry
” Of course the anomalies can be translated back into absolute temperatures! ”
Correct!
” You work out the average absolute temmperature for the baseline period, and then add that value to each anomaly and voila! You have your absolute global temps back. ”
Not quite so.
Exactly as anomalies, as understood by all people working with them, are not simply obtained by subtracting the average absolute temperature for the baseline period from absolute values, conversely absolute values cannot simply obtained back that way.
The reason is that anomalies are not only departures from a mean; they are also the result of removing the seasonal dependencies (what Roy Spencer names ‘the annual cycle’) out of the time series.
Thus, for a monthly time series, a baseline is not a single value: it is a vector of 12 values, each being the average of all corresponding monthly values within the reference period.
Things become even a bit more complicated when you have a grid: in this case, each grid cell has its own 12-month baseline vector, like e.g. in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
This file contains 12 grids, one per month; each grid contains in each of its cells the average value of all absolute values for this month in the years 1981 till 2010.
If you now would need daily anomalies, you then must construct a vector of daily averages, like in
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_climatology_1981-2010_v3.0.csv
J.-P. D.
Yes, Bindidon, monthly averages are more complicated. And there is more complication when converting anomalies to regional or local absolutes.
barry, bdgwx, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Note….remove hyphen (-) in ncd-c
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
I think the message here is that it’s easier to fudge the temperature record using anomalies than it is when absolute temperatures are used.
What dataset do you use as the gold standard for adjudicating whether other datasets are “fudging” their records?
b,
Dataset claiming to represent what, exactly? Be specific. Surface temperature? Near surface temperature? What about the oceans (most of the Earths surface)? Adjusted for altitude and season, cloud cover etc? How?
Don’t be silly. If you cannot specify what you are questioning, baiting people (trolling) just makes you look as foolish as you are.
Amazed,
BGDWX and his brethren are trying to change science. All data sets must conform to the gospel.
Yeah, and black is white.
UAH does not conform to the consensus and yet I still give it equal weight and defend it.
It’s now showing a 0.14C/decade warming trend. Sounds pretty consensual to me.
Boy, does Stephen ever have it backwards. It’s ‘skeptics’ that rubbish every global temperature data set but one, and realists who realize they are all imperfect with different strengths and weaknesses.
Elliot, I don’t think UAH conforms to the consensus. Most datasets are closer to +0.19C/decade from 1979-present.
BEST: +0.190C/decade
GISS: +0.191C/decade
ERA: +0.190C/decade
RSS: +0.212C/decade
UAH: +0.135C/decade
RATPAC: +0.18C/decade
This is a mix of station, balloon, satellite, and reanalysis. If I were to equally weight each of these I get +0.183C/decade. UAH deviates from the mean by almost 0.05C/decade.
SPA, If you have another dataset you want me to throw into the mix I’d be more than happy to include it. Remember, being skeptical means exploring all available data and lines of evidence.
No, you constantly point out that UAH data set is an outlier and that Dr. Spencer won’t share his source code with you when you should be questioning the remarkable conformity of all the other data sets.
And yet ‘we’ also use it here without denigrating it. And ‘we’ use other data sets also.
UAH being an outlier is an observation worth noting. It’s also worth noting – when ‘skeptics’ have for years trashed gl temp data sets when they could access (or just find) the data and source code – that UAH does not provide it.
Had.CRU suffers from a lack of coverage at poles, but at least doesn’t interpolate. GISS UHI correction is potentially less than optimal, and it interpolates where there is no coverage. RSS has less coverage than UAH. Berkley Earth… doesn’t seem to have many disadvantages that come to mind, and yet it is still another estimate, not gospel. All the surface records contain adjustments, because the raw data has problems. All the satellite records have adjustments because the raw data has problems.
See, I can comfortably talk about the weaknesses of any data set without needing to trash it, or to favour one over another. So can any of the realists here.
No, Stephen, it is your ilk that pick the data set that fits the ideology and trashes the rest.
“when you should be questioning the remarkable conformity of all the other data sets.”
Oh look, a hint at a conspiracy theory. All the alarmists are conniving and fudgy, but the plucky skeptics’ data set is better because they’re plucky and anti-establishment.
barry, please stop trolling.
I note that the global temperature has dropped to 0.38 degrees c anomaly and I hope that it will continue to fall although we cannot be sure it will. I do not identify with being part of the northern hemisphere so I don’t care about that. I watch our local weather as it happens on the internet so I don’t need to find out what it was last month.
“I note that the global temperature has dropped to 0.38 degrees c anomaly and I hope that it will continue to fall although we cannot be sure it will.”
We living in an Ice Age, why do want temperatures to be cooler?
Sunspot number: 0
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 09 May 2020
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 7 days
2020 total: 98 days (75%)
2019 total: 281 days (77%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
About week ago had quite few little spots, but they faded fast.
Debate regarding differences in reported average global temperatures ignores the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Water vapor.
It is not actually very hard to calculate the expected water vapor increase as a result of temperature increase. Also, WV increase has been measured using satellite instrumentation. WV calculated from Had-CRUT4 temperatures is compared to measured WV at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XFc92GAl-NXOqwiJKiAZzfEbb9x4BKND
The trends show that WV has been increasing faster than possible from temperature increase (feedback). This was corroborated by similar calculations using temperatures reported by UAH, NASA, RSS, and GISS. Therefore the alarmist’s contention that warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible.
“Therefore the alarmist’s contention that warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible.”
Dan, you can’t keep your own stories straight since you wrote many times earlier: “(I) contend that CO2 has no significant effect on climate in spite of its being a ghg.”
Which is it then: 1) warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible or 2) has no significant effect?
And proper debate does not ignore WV. Proper debate knows humidity at the equator affects near surface temperature (atm. emissivity looking up) more than at the less humid poles & this is taken into account.
Ball,
They are both true. More CO2 makes more emitters available in the stratosphere which has a cooling effect so the over-all effect of added CO2 might even be slight cooling.
I never claimed that they ignore WV; it’s that they account for it incorrectly. They calculate WV increase based on temperature increase instead of using actual WV measurements.
More humidity produces warming throughout troposphere (except, as pointed out at the end of Section 3 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com , near the poles where humidity is always low because of the cold).
Debate is of little use when some participants have been falsely indoctrinated and are unaware of their misguided perceptions. As Mark Twain said “It is far easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled”.
“They calculate”
Who is they? Meteorologists have roamed the globe measuring wv looking up through the column to use in atm. emissivity studies, wv through the column with soundings, and satellites measure the wv looking down through the column. Humidity is daily continuously measured by weather stations around the globe.
Precipitable wv in the column can also be calculated* but it’s messy which is why meteorologists much prefer to use the proper measurements rather than to calculate wv and humidity as you incorrectly write.
Since you write “they” account for it incorrectly you MUST have an example to show where practicing meteorologists do the calculation incorrectly. Otherwise you have no basis for the claim, like many around here. So show it.
Look up definitions for impossible and insignificant as your claim they are the same is preposterous. Maybe a dictionary will help you keep your stories straight, not contradict yourself showing lack of understanding even basic meteorology.
*To be the least bit credible here, your task then is to show their incorrect calculation and your valid corrections for their calculation.
NB: Selected beginning atm. thermo. texts show how to do the precipitable wv calculation; consulting one would help you learn how to do the calculation properly & maybe even show us you can do so. But from your comments I doubt you can do that.
“so the over-all effect of added CO2 might even be slight cooling.”
That would take a power source and CO2 does not have one so its passive temperature changes due its ppm changes at near atm. surface and upper regions have to cancel to follow conservation of energy i.e. Sam Clemens was right.
Ball,
The ‘they’ referred to are the GCMs. Sorry that wasn’t clear. They (the GCMs) calculate WV change based on temperature change and keeping relative humidity constant.
Your statement that I claimed that impossible and insignificant are the same is what is preposterous. As you should realize, initiated by CO2 and [after being initiated] CO2 can have no significant effect [the CO2 might be very slightly either warming or cooling of what the trend would be if there were no CO2 effect] are compatible.
I have never claimed any skill in meteorology and have no interest in gaining any. Meteorology is quite good at predicting weather for a few days but contributes little to and perhaps interferes with understanding climate change.
Your last paragraph indicates that you misunderstood my statement. Probably my fault. Replace ‘slight cooling’ with ‘reduction of the warming that would occur with increased WV if there were no effect from CO2’.
Edit per Dan: “More CO2 makes more emitters available in the stratosphere which has a cooling effect so the over-all effect of added CO2 might even be reduction of the warming that would occur with increased WV if there were no effect from CO2.”
Dan, that edited wording makes so little sense I’m appalled. It confirms your claim you have no skill in meteorology & yet you are attempting to point out errors within the meteorologist’s GCMs. Try again.
Let’s helpfully try the substitution “GCM” for “they”:
“it’s that GCMs account for it incorrectly. GCMs calculate WV increase based on temperature increase instead of using actual WV measurements.”
That doesn’t make any helpful sense either. How could GCMs use actual WV measurements except at given GCM initial conditions? Continuously re-initialized GCMs do predict the weather a few days out well enough to make personal weekend plans that usually work out well enough to pay attention to weather reports.
Your second paragraph is so unintelligible that no helpful comment is possible.
Ball,
I doubt that you are as dense as you display.
If you do not have anything rational to say about the observation that water vapor is increasing faster than possible from temperature increase and that this demonstrates that the alarmist’s contention that warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible then further discussion would be merely a distraction.
Dan, I agree there is no progress to be made until you obtain some skill in the field of meteorology.
You will learn from study in that field: 1) near surface atm. warming initiated due to CO2 increase is possible and 2) has no significant effect if by significant is meant much more than the predicted and subsequently measured/observed ~0.075C/decade increase including all the natural humidity changes.
May 7, 2020 at 3:20 am
A new pause.
Interesting.
“ The time series for CryoSat/SMOS total volume shows April 2020 a lower relative to the 2011-2020 period while PIOMAS shows a bit of an uptick. Neither time series indicates a trend over the past 10 years contrasting the drastic thinning over the last 40-years.”
God help you if you are not a member of the climate club. That post would leave you completely in the dark.
Yes barry, the comments there
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/06/new-paper-body-condition-of-barents-sea-polar-bears-increased-since-2004-despite-sea-ice-loss/
are really amazing.
J.-P. D.
barry, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
The gold standard of fudging the records is right here
You cannot change your data 15 years back so dramatically making change 10 times bigger than your error range and claim you know what you are doing at the same time ,
You lost your credibility.
https://bit.ly/2SIxtkM
You are so right…
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:2000/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2017.5/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2017.5/trend
barry
I guess the commentator you replied to has picked up this climate4you chart out of one of these dumb blogs like hockeyschtick, Trickszone or similar.
Otherwise he would have seen, on the climate4you blog, the complement UAH chart:
https://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
When comparing Ole Humlum’s UAH chart with his RSS chart
https://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
you immediately understand that Humlum is the gold standard for brute force manipulation.
Because while in the UAH chart, he compares the tiny updates within UAH6.0, he compares in the RSS chart the RSS4.0 with the previous 3.3 revision, what inevitably leads to the manifestly intended distortion, with as goal to show UAH as the good guy and RSS as the bad boy.
If Humlum was a honest person, he would have of course compared, in the UAH chart, 6.0 with 5.6, exactly as you did.
I made a chart showing the revision differences within UAH and RSS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X99gyBBRosO-pIT1LLguYbf9Q3QeQ0XL/view
J.-P. D.
I knew there was something wrong with Eben’s chart when the RSSv3 data was truncated in 2015, even though it goes to October 2018.
I see what you mean about Humlum’s deception. He presents so neutral, but if you know the data, he’s really pulled a swifty with the UAH/RSS graphs.
Wow, pretty sleazy..
barry, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I’ve been saving predictions. Eben’s comment upthread reminded me.
ScottR said on July 10 2019:
“Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina. 1+2 is ICE cold JUST like Antarctica (which Bindidon will tell you doesn’t matter) because that is where that water comes from. The lagging region 4 will plummet shortly.”
Two months later, on September 13:
“3.4 region has just made a fresh 52 week low this morning @ -.509.
1+2 has made a fresh low @ -1.446
This confirms once again the trend is lower as of today. Still heading towards La Nina.”
Fail
ENSO remained very close to neutral for the last half of 2019, and headed into el Nino condiditions in 2020. Though NOAA’s chart has crossed the el Nino threshhold, their advisory is that neutral conditions are present and expected to persist.
MEI v2
2019 0.08 0.52 0.77 0.33 0.26 0.35 0.24 0.30 0.15 0.27 0.45 0.41
2020 0.29 0.30 0.15 -0.11
Scott R is to such an extent in love with cooling, GSM, Zharkova etc etc, that it is a bit hard to trust him.
Ideology is rarely a good advisor.
barry, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I find the point of view in these posts interesting.
The lead few paragraphs emphasize the 2nd largest drop in some metric to which no one previously gave much thought, that is, the two month drop.
Under the lede there’s discussion that the trend has increased to 0.14/decade. Which in reality means 0.1349 or so has gone to 0.1351 or so which is pretty negligible difference excepting that it’s amplified by the conventions of rounding to two decimal places.
For the linear trend to have increased however slightly it follows that this month’s data is above the trend (about 0.05 C if one does the math). So one might just as well say that this month was pretty much what one would expect, only a bit higher.
And the “2nd largest drop” is largely down to the fact that February was exceptionally high under weak El Nino conditions while April is unexceptional. February was in fact the highest (anomaly – linear trend) month outside of a strong (87-88) or very strong (97-98, 15-16) El Nino event.
https://tinyurl.com/ycw4ydbo
Pretty good summation, Mark.
I had a big laugh as I read somewhere above:
” According to chiefio, GHCN has slashed the reporting stations by 90% since 1990.
The Canadian Arctic has many more stations than are used by NOAA. They were using only the station at Eureka, to cover the entire Arctic, last time I looked. ”
Ha ha ha haaa!
Robertson and Smith: that is the perfect duo.
I will never forget this Smith guy writing in 2009, in his ridiculous ‘chiefio’ boaster blog, about a ‘Great Dying of the Thermometers’ in Canada:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
This is really one of the dumbest, most ignorant posts I have ever read.
Manifestly, Smith suddenly discovered at that time that the GHCN V2 directory was nearly empty.
But… he did not notice that exactly at this time, NOAA moved all V2 data to the new, freshly born V3 directory.
And of course Robertson has to fall for such chess! No wonder.
Here are a few GHCN daily Canadian stations located in the Arctic…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kh2Sc8Yf-t3kjXhVF9jwPPPnoHVbIxt2/view
Of course: according to genius Robertson, NOAA never uses them.
They even do not exist! Their data is generated automatically by… a model!
But for heaven’s sake: don’t tell it anyone, keep it secret.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, clicked on the last link and it said I needed permission, so now an email is being sent to my gmail account??
May I suggest using https://imgur.com/ as a place to host your graphs? It loads fast and is free.
Thanks barry, I didn’t see that Google Drive has changed its modus operandi!
Moving away from there is a problem: I stored over 200 charts in the place.
Is it OK now?
Yep, it’s loading.
GHCN daily hasx heaps of stations. But to play devil’s advocate, how many are in GHCN monthly?
(Forgive me, but whenever I delive into GHCN, I need to download programs to access some of their data – I don’t have the spare time, or the inclination to find the time, to learn to use those applications)
Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
Has anybody managed to demonstrate the heating property of CO2 using a real heat source, a real thermometer and real CO2? Please post your actual results. Specifications of your heat source, thermometer and purity and concentration of your CO2 are required in sufficient detail so that others may replicate your results.
No analogies, please.
Standard part of the physics curriculum in British schools. Ask any kid: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5220812.pdf
There is no dispute that CO2 absorbs infrared and heats up, just basic fizzix , the dispute is that this experiment of gas in the glass box in no way represents atmosphere on the planet, if anything it shows only the part how CO2 heats up when exposed to the infrared it doesn’t show anything about the other half of the equation how it cools down when the light is removed , Just like the idiotic climate energy models where the earth and the atmosphere is flat and static and the sun shines 24/7 with 240W evenly everywhere,
This is why I make fun of the classroom academics , they are two hundred years backwards behind the people who produce things in real life that actually function .
EB,
Dont be stupid. This demonstration shows that CO2 can be heated. Duh! No CO2 heating properties in evidence. Try making a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the heat source! Or anything else! Put a slab of rock wool between your heat lamp and your thermometer – watch the temperature drop. Rock wool is an even better insulator than CO2.
Are the teachers in the UK really as dumb as you suggest? Do they believe the rubbish they are forced to teach?
The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will keep looking up at the sky thinking the satellite must be falling.
Arf.
Has anyone mentioned that Mike Mann was just elected to the NAS?
If ever there was proof that climate $cience (a/k/a climastrology, a psuedoscience) is hopelessly corrupt and has been politicized by bad actors intent on achieving the political goals they would not otherwise be able to accomplish by co-opting science, the election of Michael “Piltdown” Mann to the NAS is it.
“Piltdown” Mann is the antithesis of science and scientific method.
John Garrett
And you, Garrett, are the most obvious contrast to someone who would be able to judge a scientist like Michael Mann.
Not only do you lack the knowledge, but above all the will to be free of prejudice.
You are nothing more than a discrediting and denigrating person.
J.-P. Dehottay
Principal Components Analysis ?
Bristlecone pine tree rings ?
A graph cobbled together by appending instrument-measured temperatures to proxy-derived temperatures ?
Where is that data archived ?
Beyond those mortal sins, all that’s necessary to accurately assess the character and intentions of “Piltdown” Mann is to observe his behavior and read his protestations.
“Piltdown” Mann is a fraud and a charlatan (and the tenor of his responses show that he knows it).
Garrett
Your reply perfectly confirms what a bad, disgusting person you are.
I already replied to your stupid claim concerning PCA, in use by several people all around the world, especially by Valentina Zharkova.
You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what you woefully discredit here.
Nothing!
You are such a coward, Garrett.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“[Endless list of names] please stop trolling.”
Real Dr. Roy, do we really have to endure this pointless peasant spamming the exact same phrase month in, month out? Can’t you have him shot, or something?
Cant you just stop trolling?
Yeah, why cant we all just get along and agree with all the made up physics!
#2
Cant you just stop trolling?
Elliott…”Real Dr. Roy, do we really have to endure this pointless peasant spamming…”
Why would someone who supports a clown like Michael Mann appeal to Roy for justice? Mann hates Roy, UAH, and everything they stand for. Mann hates science period and NAS should change their nym to NACC, the National Academy of Climate Clowns.
It’s like they’re so self-important they actually believe Dr Spencer wants a bunch of Skeptical Science drones commenting here in greater numbers than actual skeptics. Like Dr Spencer is going to gladly do their bidding, rather than his actual job.
Extremely frosty air will now be moving over the northeast US.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01005/o6aorsgv5igd.png
ren…”Extremely frosty air will now be moving over the northeast US”.
How’s things going? Getting through this covid bs OK?
It’s a bit cool at night here too in the Pacific Northwest. Coolest spring I can remember for a long time.
You can go back now as far as 32 years to see the same temperature as today ,
In 2019 just a year back and at the ending of the chart the temperature was the same as in 1980 just a year from the start of the chart with a span of 39 years
why is the the little up and down noise in between of any meaning ? it isn’t .
The point being as long as the highs and lows meet you have no trend because you haven’t even risen above the noise level, something the resident wannabee scientists on this blog do not comprehend.
Beware of the deluded classroom academics who keep drawing straight lines through snippets of data , calling it “trends” and projecting it 100 years into the future , they have no idea how a climate system works
Global warming has stopped!
Again!
https://tinyurl.com/y8ezo9my
Eben said: The point being as long as the highs and lows meet you have no trend because you haven’t even risen above the noise level, something the resident wannabee scientists on this blog do not comprehend.
First, that is factually and mathematically incorrect. The warming trend is statistically significant.
Second, later lows are higher than earlier highs.
Third, the atmosphere takes up maybe 3% or so of Earth’s energy imbalance and is highly variable due to various heat flux processes. If instead we switch to the hydrosphere which takes at least 90% of the imbalance you’ll see that the later low are much higher than earlier highs…by like a lot.
Svante, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Must watch video:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/dr.-anthony-faucis-ex-employee-was-jailed-finally-tells-all
Anderson
Instead of posting such nonsense, better watch this
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
every day.
binny…”Instead of posting such nonsense, better watch this”
You stupid, bone-headed jerk. The video posted by Stephen Paul Anderson is vital to our democracy. The woman was arrested for nothing, she was held for no reason and spent considerable time in jail, and it was due to Anthony Fauci, the blithering idiot who is now advising the US on covid19.
I have always regarded him as a dishonest creep and Nobelist Kary Mullis, did not mince words over Fauci, calling him an ****ole.
At the end of this video, Fauci can be seen giving a speech in which he is warning US citizens that an epidemic is imminent in the next couple of years. It seems apparent he knew this covid contagion was coming and the lady being interviewed gives evidence that Fauci has connection to a Wuhan lab where Fauci’s department has been trading data with them.
The woman being interviewed is a researcher who claims Fauci has patents on a vaccine. She is warning, based on her experience as a scientist, that such a vaccine, or any flu vaccine that is based on animal products, can potentially spread a covid-type infection.
She has almost gone so far as to say the spread of this virus is intentional. This is a woman who worked for Fauci and became a whistle-blower trying to expose his creepy ways.
Overall, we rate Canada Free Press Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous false claims.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/canada-free-press/
Ok, so you’re one of those people who gets worked up about conspiracy theories. Isn’t the truth interesting enough?
barry…”Overall, we rate Canada Free Press Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous false claims”.
Who cares about the messenger, we are concerned with the veracity and integrity of the message. The woman delivering the message is a scientist who has been harassed for speaking out about corruption in her work place.
The mainstream press won’t interview her because they are part of the problem. It’s the same with John CHristy, Roy Spencer, and Richard Lindzen, the media don’t want to know anything about them. They’d rather interview a blatant ****ole like Michael Mann.
Your problem is that you have God-given intelligence which you suppress and override with an appeal to authority and the status quo. Ergo, you are a butt-kisser to conformity and authority. What is it about the real world that scares you so much?
And you take her word for it. You think her story is the truth. There’s no evidence, no documentation, nothing to check whether she has actually uncovered something, or whether she is a disgruntled former employee who wove a narrative to console herself by identifying as some kind of victim. Or hero.
“we are concerned with the veracity and integrity of the message”
And what steps did you take to investigate the circumstances in which the woman left the job? What leads did you follow to authenticate her version of events?
I can already tell you. You did no such diligence, but instead are weaving this story into related conspiracy theories, and believing that the ‘pattern’ provides all the evidence needed.
Conspiracy ideation is not difficult to recognize or parse.
Stephen…”Must watch video:”
I’ll say it’s a must watch. Very important and something I have suspected about Fauci and the HIV/AIDS propagandists for a long time.
Thanks for posting.
You’re going to have to do some selective editing, because the woman clearly believes HIV and AIDS are part and parcel. So your expert witness here will have terribly flawed judgement on the issue she’s trained in according to your own beliefs, but miraculousy keen insight when it comes to padding out other bits of your opinion.
She knows AIDS is caused by HIV virus. You apparently don’t. Are you here to tell us something different?
Leftists do conspire. That’s their main methodology. Leftists believe Government is the solution. So, when we point out the conspiracies then their first reaction is to attack the attacker. You’re paranoid! Prove it! All the while they deny, deny, deny. It’s in Alinsky’s playbook. You can provide a mountain of evidence and the leftist response is, “That’s all you got?” So, you need to come up with evidence that what she’s saying isn’t true. Her evidence is the historical record.
Gordon thinks it’s a lie that AIDS is caused by HIV.
I was talking about his opinion. Learn to read.
Where is this montain of evidence?
Evidence is NOT ‘This person said some things and they must be true.’
Nor is it ‘This person said some things and it relates to different things someone else said.’
Evidentiary standards for conspiracy theorists? Pffffft.
I wish our resident skeptics would be even a tiny bit skeptical of stuff they find on the internet. Just do a bit of googling to check the facts in a video.
Is that so much to ask?
For example:
“Mikovits claims that she ‘taught’ Ebola cells in a U.S. Army laboratory at Fort Detrick how to infect human cells in 1999, effectively saying that she weaponized the disease against humans.
‘Ebola couldnt infect human cells until we took them in the laboratories and taught them,’ states Mikovits.”
She must have also had a time machine to take those manipulated Ebola back to 1970s Africa where the first human Ebola breakouts were reported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease
“You can provide a mountain of evidence and the leftist response is, Thats all you got? So, you need to come up with evidence that what shes saying isnt true. Her evidence is the historical record”
The evidence is her version of history.
Other people’s version of history does not agree with hers.
Fauci denies what she claims about him.
Her employer claims she removed lab books after being fired.
A coworker says he helped her take the material.
The police say they did have a warrant.
The police say that she was charged with a crime.
Do any of these people deserve to be believed?
Why only her?
“So, you need to come up with evidence that what shes saying isnt true. Her evidence is the historical record”
This.
This is point blank the moronic thinking of conspiracy theorists.
Someone said something, it seems true to me, so unless you can prove it not true, it’s true.
I mean it’s just plain moronic. How do these people even dress themselves?
barry’s more than happy to go off-topic, so long as the subject interests him. If not, then going off-topic is bad.
The topic is very relevant to many posters here, even you, DREMT.
It is why one shouldnt believe anything you find on the internet just because it aligns with your beliefs.
Its about learning the facts and background, before judging if an internet video or blog is accurate.
#2
barry’s more than happy to go off-topic, so long as the subject interests him. If not, then going off-topic is bad.
I remember the good old times (about 6 weeks ago or so) where “data crack” (self-description) W. Eschenbach explained us at WUWT that the US would be, with around 5 deaths per million people, far far from being endangered by COVID-19…
In between, the US have entered the top ten of that stat (last column):
BE 51420 8415 16 737
ES 221447 26070 12 558
IT 215858 29958 14 496
UK 206715 30615 15 460
FR 137779 25987 19 388
NL 41774 5288 13 307
SE 24623 3040 12 299
IE 22385 1403 6 289
US 1256972 75670 6 231
CH 30043 1517 5 178
Btw, we will see how the UK, one more country driven by an irresponsible politician, will do in the next weeks.
The next country of that kind being… Brazil.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
binny…”In between, the US have entered the top ten of that stat (last column):”
The top ten for what? What are the tests testing for, certainly not a virus?
The current covid tests are converting RNA to DNA and amplifying the DNA after it has been made radioactive. The PCR method for DNA amplification is applied to a small sample of radioactive DNA and it is amplified while illuminated by ultraviolet light, which reacts to radioactivity. When they DNA reaches a multiplication of a certain level the ultraviolet light is reflected in different colours. At that point a person is claimed positive if the level exceeds an arbitrary value.
EVERYBODY would test positive for this DNA/RNA because DNA/RNA is in every cell in the human body. The tests are only measuring a little more RNA in people who are infected with ANYTHING. The viral loading technique is a scam invented for HIV and it has been debunked. Why is it still being used?
What has any of that got to do with testing for a viral load? It is INFERRED that the RNA converted to DNA using a reverse transcriptase enzyme is RNA from Covid 19. They don’t have the slightest shred of scientific evidence to back that claim. It is a presumption and it’s wrong.
There is a perfectly good method for testing for a virus, why is it not being used? It could not be used for HIV because nothing showed up with the standard method. Some idiots reasoned HIV was there but there was so little of it they could not find it using the standard test. So the idiots decided to amplify DNA that was converted from RNA found in an infected person.
Luc Montagnier who won a Nobel for discovering HIV admitted in an hour long interview that he did not purify HIV or see it with an electron microscope. He admitted to inferring its existence, claiming he THOUGHT that 1 in 1000 particles in an infected sample were HIV. He claimed in the same interview, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.
Here’s the circular logic for viral loading:
1)A virus is RNA contained in a protein coating
2)RNA is found in infected people (also in non-infected people)
3)Therefore the RNA must come from a virus.
4)We have not seen the virus or isolated it, but we’ll call it covid19.
That is about the most stupid pseudo-science I have ever encountered. They cannot find a virus using the standard method so they infer one using circular logic that makes no scientific sense.
The logic was wrong for HIV where that viral loading technique originated. Kary Mullis who invented the PCR method and won a Nobel for his efforts got angry when asked about the viral loading technique. He claimed PCR cannot detect a virus. Mullis did HIV-related work, he knew about viruses.
The number of deaths reported in the US jumped dramatically over a two week period from 500 to nearly 50,000. That is total bs. Fauci, of the US NIAID (infectious control) put his foot in his mouth by claiming there could be over 200,000 deaths related to covid in the US. Trump bit and began braying about that possibility. Now they are in damage control, trying to artificially elevate the number of deaths so they won’t look absolutely stupid.
Trump has realized his error and he is pushing to get the US economy going again. He is being opposed by the likes of Fauci at NIAID and the US Center for Disease Control, who want to control the transition. I say, kick their sorry butts out the door and get on with it. Let the human immune system do what it does best.
It was the same in the UK. They were following the Swedish model of using scientific analysis and watching the contagion on a daily basis to see where it would go. Then some bean-counting idiots at the Royal Society put out a ludicrous projection of 500,000 deaths based on a computer model. The UK immediately changed course and started locking the country down. They panicked.
In the US, the head of the coroner’s association in Philadelphia is upset because they don’t have a body count that matches the inflated death statistics. In Minnesota, a doctor complained that the State is putting pressure on him to increase the number of covid-related deaths. They have urged him to report any death as covid-related even if the deceased does not test positive but he had been in contact with a family member or friend who had tested positive.
As one scientist put it, the pandemic is not about covid, it’s about the hysteria and panic in the human mind.
Gordon Robertson
Please just stop with your continuous lies, misleading information and dishonesty. The contrarians are not heroes. They are not good people at all. They are like you, bad people. Liars, dishonest and deceitful. You praise horrible people (like yourself). You love the lies and hate truth. Your whole post is a bunch of distorted lies and deception. Purposefully trying to mislead people. You have a deep problem that no one can fix. Seems like most people here know you are a dishonest liar yet you pretend no one has pointed out your many lies. Like the contrarians you praise. They lie and distort and people prove them wrong but they ignore the truth and continue to lie. Just like you. Super dishonest and for what? What does your constant lies get you. Not respect.
Norman – have pity on him. It is the medications we give him that induces such paranoia.
nurse crotchrot…It seems you’ve had one too many covid innoculations. Your lung infections has spread to what’s left of your brain.
Still dressing in drag?
Oooh Gordon!
Are you interested in a date?
I can dress up however you like !
norman…”The contrarians are not heroes. They are not good people at all”.
I suppose you call this guy who represents your side a good person? If you do, then I can begin to understand your dementia.
Watch the part where they throw a female scientist in jail for absolutely nothing, and keep her there. That’s your type, the type who ruined the career and life of Peter Duesberg for telling the truth about HIV.
Did I mention that you’re a freakin’ idiot?
From Stephen above:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/dr.-anthony-faucis-ex-employee-was-jailed-finally-tells-all
Gordon Robertson
You don’t even look into things when you make a lying false post. The female scientist you are referring to was put in jail for stealing items. Read up on it.
Peter Duesberg is an evil human with a cold heart. His false ideas on HIV caused the deaths of several people that could have been helped. He is a false prophet from the house of lies.
I am no idiot. I like Truth. You hate it so you have nothing else but your lies, dishonesty and attempting to throw mud.
You see everyone in the World as dishonest but you and a handful of lying dishonest contrarians who you blindly believe. The point is you are projecting your own dishonest mind unto everything and then you are not able to see that you are the lying dishonest one not the rest of the scientific world. Your own dishonest lying mind can’t see itself but sees everyone as it really is (which they are not)
You think scientists are intentionally “fudging” temperature data and yet you have not read one article on what they are doing and why and then proposing valid skeptical arguments against some of their choices. No all you do is make the false lying claim they are intentionally “fudging” data to create warming that does not exist in reality. Now you say that authorities are “fudging” deaths in Covid cases. You have zero proof of this allegation. You have done no study to prove such claim. You just assume everyone (buy you and a handful of lying contrarians) is a dishonest liar like you are so you can’t believe anything and you do this all with no evidence or proof. That is a pathetic mind. Full of lies and dishonesty but can not ever examine itself to see if it is the source of all the lies and “fudging” it sees.
norman…”Peter Duesberg is an evil human with a cold heart. His false ideas on HIV caused the deaths of several people that could have been helped. He is a false prophet from the house of lies.
I am no idiot. I like Truth”.
No, Norman, you have an image in your mind that you like the truth but you are suffering from the same problem as most who rely on mental imagery, you are fooling yourselg.
You ad hom and insult Peter Duesberg without supplying a shred of evidence as to why he is evil. Read his writings and tell why he is evil?
https://www.duesberg.com/
Everything he has written on his site has been proved to be true. Obviously, you are clinging to the old propaganda spread by people like Fauci of NIAID. Fauci is still at it and there are now links to him and the lab in Wuhan, China where they were working on covid.
And why are you talking about panic and fear, gbakie? This doesn’t get us closer to the truth.
Where do you go to get a solid medical understanding of the issue, gbakie?
This is what happens when you read blogs and ‘experts’ that couldn’t get their opinions published in any journal. Robertson seems to believe that an opinion must be right if its anti-establishment.
“As one scientist put it, the pandemic is not about covid, its about the hysteria and panic in the human mind.”
So, a pandemic of hysteria and panic in the human mind?
Is there any country which has escape this pandemic of hysteria and panic in the human mind?
While we topic of nullifying viruses, I heard recently the idea that “common seasonal flu” has inflated numbers in terms deaths per year.
So, is the number given for common seasonal flu, somewhat accurate OR is that also a scam?
Anyhow, it seems people are increasingly imagining that Vitamin D is somewhat important in regards the no china virus.
gbaikie…”While we topic of nullifying viruses, I heard recently the idea that common seasonal flu has inflated numbers in terms deaths per year”.
The numbers are all estimates. No one knows for sure if most people die from the flu or from underlying conditions. That applies equally to the current contagion. No on knows the accuracy of the infections or the deaths claimed espeacially when pressure is being applied to US medical people to list deaths as covid-related.
Well I made long post, but it didn’t post. I will keep it short.
We are going to leave this lockdown stuff pretty quick.
The most extreme action of “leave this lockdown stuff” is returning to international air travel.
And I say roughly this will happen in 3 months. If we were much smarter, it could happen within 1 month.
But I would say that I am being optimistic about how smart we might be, when I say within 3 months.
But what I am interested in, is when do you think we start returning to normal in terms of international air travel.
And more interesting which country do you imagine, starts international air travel, first?
“While we topic of nullifying viruses,”
Who is talking about that? The objective is to “flatten the curve.”
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of lockdowns and social distancing.
“Who is talking about that? The objective is to “flatten the curve.”
No, it’s: “Who is talking about that? The objective was to “flatten the curve.”
The flattening the curve is done, already, and it’s done globally.
Though obviously the virus still exist, and we no clue when could stop existing. And no clue if any vaccine will work or how well it works if it works at all.
The only question at this point, is what is best way to go, after the curve has been flattened.
In the beginning the virus was a low risk of death. And even a low risk of death to the population which has highest risk of death- which was over 65.
But in terms of risk of serious illness which doesn’t result in death, that was why you needed a lockdown.
Or since this started, mid Jan 2020 {or earlier} we needed isolation of 65 or older and we still need “social distancing” of 65 or older, but total isolation in some regions for over 65 shouldn’t be a government type order, but rather a government “advise”. Monitoring such population should/could be a strict government order.
The thing we call “lockdown” was for the purpose of flattening the curve, and as I said, “globally” this already happened.
So to be clear, all population should be doing “social distancing” in regard to 65 or older and close monitoring of this population.
So India should end their lockdown and put a lot more governmental attention upon it’s 65 + population. Same goes for Africa- probably as wild guess lots deficiency in some African countries in this regard. But globally there also deficency in that regard, which is “proven” by the high deaths per million.
When leaving lock down, one of course should continue varying degrees of social distancing. And of course people infected, should not be in workplaces or crowded areas, includes anyone volunteering the possibility they might be infected with China virus. Don’t need a test that indicates this is the case. Should be “allowed” to self isolate. And this also extends to people worried about catching the virus. But such opinion or excuse [rather evidence} could change within say 1 month or less after ending the lockdown. But at any time, in future {say a few years} anyone should be able to get a test, and if results indicate they have virus- it extend another 2 weeks from when test was taken, that should go to work, etc.
And why are you talking about panic and fear, gbakie? This doesn’t get us closer to the truth.
Where do you go to get a solid medical understanding of the issue, gbakie?
Speaking of panic and fear, this makes me a bit worried:
Why have 14,000 people volunteered to be infected with coronavirus?
“They want to take part in a “human challenge trial,” an ethically controversial vaccine test that infects people with a virus doesn’t yet have a cure.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-have-14-000-people-volunteered-be-infected-coronavirus-n1203931
“They dont have the slightest shred of scientific evidence to back that claim. ”
But Gordon that meets your usual standards for believing a claim.
nate…”They dont have the slightest shred of scientific evidence to back that claim.
But Gordon that meets your usual standards for believing a claim”.
For one, I have stopped believing anything. For another, what is wrong with holding theories and propaganda to a scientific standard?
When epidemiologist, Johan Geiseke, an advisor to the WHO, was asked his opinion on social distancing he replied immediately that no scientific evidence exists to support the theory.
That’s not what he said.
As usual your regular net surfing has led you to the maverick voice, and that’s the one you think is right. Doesn’t matter what the vast majority of experts think, you just like mavericks – but only ones that suit your own opinions.
But you can’t even get the maverick opinion right, you still have to distort what they say til its what you think and not what they think, just the same way you do with the NOAA advisory about the number of stations.
This is demented, Robertson.
Geiseke clearly thinks that social distancing and lockdowns prevent the spread of the disease – for that matter, this is true of most diseases, and is frankly bloody obvious. His opinion is that, except for aged care facilities, social distancing and lockdown merely suspend the inevitable and are mostly a waste of time.
It’s not hard to get that right.
My opinion – social distancing and lockdown were always designed to flatten the curve, and give time to prepare the health system for a potential explosion of cases, as we’ve seen in several countries around the world. No one seriously expected the disease to be eradicated enitrely, just managed.
So I think Geiseke’s argument is a straw man from the outset. Medically sound, but missing the point.
“The number of deaths reported in the US jumped dramatically over a two week period from 500 to nearly 50,000. That is total bs.”
That actually occurred Mar 22 to Apr 23, a month.
Anyway, the BS of that seems to be just a feeling. Maybe its just gas?
I can’t stop repeating it:
All these Pseudoskeptics – not only Robertson of course, but all those who silently or visibly agree to his stupid, disgusting trash – should be sentenced by a court to a six-week forced social stay in a hospital, e.g. in New York, in Rio de Janeiro, Manaus or the like.
You all understand: I mean one of these hospitals so full of patients that the doctors don’t know whom to help in surviving.
The best job for him there would be to make protective clothing of doctors and nurses clean!
But of course: without masks and protective clothing! Because… they tell us it’s not necessary.
J.-P. D.
binny….”should be sentenced by a court to a six-week forced social stay in a hospital, e.g. in New York, in Rio de Janeiro, Manaus or the like.
You all understand: I mean one of these hospitals so full of patients that the doctors don’t know whom to help in surviving”.
All of those people account for about 1/1000nds of 1% of populations. The problem is not the contagion its how utterly unprepared we have been for medical emergencies. We are too cheap to spend money on essentials, rather, we allow people like Bill Gates to amass billions of dollars then turn on us, telling us how stupid we are.
Italy was the model for the hysteria and panic and it turns out many factors were missed due to the rush to panic. For one, the same devastation struck Italy in the 2016/17 flu season, where 25,000 people died across Italy. The difference this time it the contagion struck in a small northern area of Italy. In my region of Canada we’ve had about 120 deaths, most in senior’s care facilities.
Furthermore, the city of Milan, in the middle of the current contagion, was declared the most polluted city in Europe in 2008. The same is true for Wuhan, China where the pollution is much greater. Therefore people are bound to have respiratory issues. Furthermore, Italy has some of the oldest population in the world.
Robertson
Again, your stupid and ignorant trash.
I confirm my comment above.
The way the UAH chart is drawn even the 13 month average which is on the zero line at the start of the chart still got crossed at 2012, that’s 32 years into the set and only 8 years back,
In a little while it will cross it again , just wait and remember you heard it from me first
I predict that the red line will continue to go up and down. I expect a medal once this is shown to be the case.
I don’t know how long it will take for ignorants to understand the difference between
– the same zero anomaly level on a chart for e.g. 1980 and 2012
and
– the temperature increase between the two years: 0.11 C / decade.
How is it possible to keep so incredibly uneducated when posting during years on such a blog?
binny…”I dont know how long it will take for ignorants to understand the difference between
the same zero anomaly level on a chart for e.g. 1980 and 2012
and
the temperature increase between the two years: 0.11 C / decade.”
There is not much of a relationship between the two. The absolute temperature increase requires absolute temperatures and we seldom get to see those. Instead, we are inundated with a over-exaggerated and condensed anomaly view that fits within 1C.
Anomalies are misleading since they are based on unnatural averages created by the human mind. They are also open to fudging as NOAA has shown by creating a trend from 1998 – 2012 that the IPCC failed to find in the papers it reviewed.
I mean, how is the baseline range determined? It’s an arbitrary value related to the scientist creating it. Also, the practice of adjusting anomalies to seasonal averages is questionable.
There is no way to find an accurate global average and even if we could, what does a 15C average mean in winter to people suffering through temps of -30C? We simply don’t have the coverage with land and ocean surface thermometers. Even with the sats, they average temperatures over altitude depths due to the nature of the telemetry. However, we know a lot about temperatures at altitudes and what to expect so in the capacity, the sat data is much more accurate.
Robertson
1. ” The absolute temperature increase requires absolute temperatures and we seldom get to see those. Instead, we are inundated with a over-exaggerated and condensed anomaly view that fits within 1C. ”
Usual nonsense written by somebody whose real knowledge is inversely proportional to the size of his redundant and wrong posts.
UAH6.0 LT anomalies wrt mean of 1981-2020 for
– Sep 1980: -0.01 C
– Nov 2011: -0.01 C
Trend for this period, using the anomaly time series:
0.11 C / decade
UAH6.0 LT, reconstructed absolute values for
– Sep 1980: -8.69 C
– Nov 2011: -9.89 C
Trend for the same period, using the absolute time series:
0.15 C / decade
*
2. ” They are also open to fudging as NOAA has shown by creating a trend from 1998 2012… ”
NOAA trends
– for Jan 1998 – Dec 2012: 0.08 C / decade
– for Jan 1999 – Dec 2012: 0.12 C / decade
– for Jan 1979 – Dec 2019: 0.17 C / decade
*
3. ” However, we know a lot about temperatures at altitudes and what to expect so in the capacity, the sat data is much more accurate. ”
Wrong.
You don’t mean “sat data”. You mean “UAH data”.
Because you believe that RSS data is ‘fudged’.
*
Ignorants better keep silent, Robertson. It saves blog space.
Hmmmm, I think I can personally detect warming having lived within a 50 mile radius since my earliest memories. I remember reading about major crop freezes in my youth on a regular basis. Today we are so lucky that such stuff is very rare.
Robertson
I forgot this:
” Also, the practice of adjusting anomalies to seasonal averages is questionable. ”
You pretended many times to be an admirator of Roy Spencer.
Try to prove this, by learning what he told us years ago about anomaly-based time series in which the annual cycle is removed.
barry…”Youre going to have to do some selective editing, because the woman clearly believes HIV and AIDS are part and parcel. So your expert witness here will have terribly flawed judgement on the issue shes trained in according to your own beliefs, but miraculousy keen insight when it comes to padding out other bits of your opinion”.
She would not have gotten a job working for Fauci had she not believed that nonsense about HIV/AIDS. I am not interested in that part of her revelations it is in her view as an immunologist that we are attacking the current contagion incorrectly.
She was also right about Fauci albeit in the wrong context. Nobelist Kary Mullis did not refer to Fauci as an ****ole for nothing. Mullis did not tolerate fools and he became angered at the way Fauci promoted the HIV/AIDS theory with no scientific proof to back his claims.
For at least the first ten years after HIV was declared as the cause of AIDS (no peer review) circa 1983 HIV was referred to as the virus BELIEVED to cause AIDS. The reason was simple, there was no scientific proof that it did. The theory was anointed under tremendous lobbying from the homosexual community who were demanding an answer.
There has to be a reason why Fauci and Gallo have stubbornly clung to the THEORY that HIV causes AIDS while the scientist who was first to reveal the virus, Luc Montagnier, has long since changed his mind. He now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and the data over the past 40 years proves that clearly.
I think this lady revealed in her video that Gallo and Fauci have profited from patents related to this theory. Mind you, Montagnier received half of Gallo’s patent profits on HIV tests after the French government protested to the US government that Gallo had stolen intellectual material from Montagnier. They apparently settled out of court with Montagnier receiving half the profits.
Montagnier never did claim that HIV alone could cause AIDS, he thought a co-factor was required. It took him over 30 years to find the co-factor, life style. That’s a shame because the expert despised by Norman, Peter Duesberg, claimed that in the beginning.
What Norman is missing is that Duesberg is a brilliant scientist who was the youngest member at the time ever inducted into the National Academy of Science. This is a case like that of Barry Marshall, the Australian who discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria. It’s a case where one person is right and the rest are wrong.
Mullis had mulled over the idea of finding a paper that proved how HIV caused AIDS but it was not till he was driving one night and heard Duesberg talking about HIV on the car radio that he was motivated to find that paper. He searched for 10 years, including a talk with Luc Montagnier, and could find none. Montagnier knew of no such paper.
The lady in the video, an immunologist, is calling for an examination of the state of corruption in medical science. However, she has a steep, uphill battle. The mainstream press, butt-kissers to the medical establishment, are all over her already, cherry picking her words and focusing on trivia to discredit her.
For example, they have zeroed in on a study she did circa 2008 that was apparently refuted. They mention nothing of Gallo’s abject failure trying to prove cancer is caused by a virus. Following that failure, with Gallo appearing as an absolute fool, the Reagan administration were looking for a cause of AIDS. There was Gallo, front and centre, with a very convenient viral theory.
His viral theory was accepted without question and without peer review. Why don’t the mainstream press zero in on that?
“She would not have gotten a job working for Fauci had she not believed that nonsense about HIV/AIDS. I am not interested in that part of her revelations it is in her view as an immunologist that we are attacking the current contagion incorrectly.”
But this is your dilemma that you don’t seem to be interested in confonting.
How can she give sound medical advice if she, who was in the lab in the thick of the HIV/AIDS research, got that issue completely wrong (according to you).
And she believes that “nonsense” all right – she could have disavowed it in the vid, years after parting company from Fauci, instead of confirming the mainstream view.
Nope, you just pick and choose without a shred of skeptical enquiry, any hearsay that satisfies your worldview.
Meanwhile, Nate did some research and it seems she’s full of shit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-470264
What research did you do to critically assess the veracity of her story? Not someone else’s story – her story.
We both know you swallowed what she said hook line and sinker, and have done no scrutiny, nor will perform no scrutiny on her version of events.
Wrong link to Nate – check out what she’s claimed and what is real, Robertson.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-470068
norman…from Duesberg’s site…
“He [Duesberg] isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health”.
The blurb has omitted that Duesberg was the youngest member in 1986 ever inducted into NAS. Also, that he was the recipient of the California Scientist of the Year Award.
If you were not so narrow minded, you’d research Duesberg and learn what an insightful, humanistic man he is. There is nothing evil about Peter Duesberg.
The real evil exists with people who pump healthy people who have tested positive for HIV with lethal, toxic antiviral drugs. The drug manufacturers not only claim the drugs cannot cure HIV, they admit they are severely toxic and that they can cause IRS, essentially AIDS caused by drugs. The drugs are known to cause a serious blood disorder and liver/kidney failure, often leading to death.
You are targeting the wrong man. Duesberg felt aghast when he learned AZT was being used to treat HIV. AZT is so toxic, it was discontinued as a cancer chemotherapy treatment. The newer HAART antivirals are little better.
You should be going after Fauci, a man I consider as being truly evil.
Gordon Robertson
Peter Duesberg is a lying scoundrel that is responsible for causing the death of many people. A reporter revealed how he was a liar and deliberately distorting the Truth. The reporter was sued for defamation but the case did not stick as he had good research to back up his claims.
https://www.courthousenews.com/aids-denialist-reporter-loses-defamation-claim/
” In an email to the one of the organizations coordinators, Treatment Action Group coordinator Richard Jeffreys wrote that Farber and Duesberg are not whistleblowers, they are simply liars who for many years have used fraud to argue for Duesbergs long-discredited theory that drug use and malnutrition not HIV cause AIDS.
Gordon Robertson
More:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015095/
And then finally people who had HIV test positive but where part of the HIV causes AIDS denial group, here is some eye opening cases. You can reject them but Peter Duesberg is a bad person, a liar and deceiver. He may have done some good research at some time but now he likes the power and support of being praised for allegedly standing against the “Powers that Be”. I like that Spirit when it is honest and truthful. When it lies and is deceitful it is not something to be praised and should not be supported.
When Duesberg first questioned the HIV connection to AIDS that is useful. It promotes good solid research. When he ignores mountains of evidence and then promotes his ideas in Africa leading to many deaths he is a bad person at that point. Nothing to admire at all.
https://www.poz.com/article/Don-8217-t-Buy-The-HIV-Lie-10455-7458
‘You should be going after Fauci, a man I consider as being truly evil.’
Perfect illustration of our polarized politics.
When people disagree with you on politics or whatever, they are not just wrong.
They do not just just have a different opinion. No, thats not enough.
They must also be EVIL.
Is it evil to push hard fund research into treatments for horrible diseases like AIDS?
Is it evil to correct the president on science?
If so, then evil must have been redefined.
Nate says: – Is it evil to correct the president on science?
—————-
Except that nobody I am aware of correcting the President on science. In fact, I haven’t even heard the President offer anything even remotely like science. The President is by and large the skeptic-in-chief. Those who lose their skepticism aren’t scientists they are true believers.
Evil is claiming somebody did when they didn’t.
Again, evil gets redefined to suit your agenda
the lack of defense of your claim is telling.
The president says many many dumb, false things related to science, and other things. Lately related to health and medicine.
Often these need to be corrected.
You appear to be unaware of current events. Maybe go read a newspaper.
What I have seen is medical experts providing additional details, which is typical in a press conference and the reason why Chiefs pass the microphone during press conferences.
Apparently for all you true believer extrapolators out there thats just to tough to handle.
Gordon,
From wikipedia:
“Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is a discredited American ex-research scientist[2][3][10][11][12] who is known for her anti-vaccination activism,[12][13] promotion of conspiracy theories, and scientific misconduct.[6][7][8][9].”
Look at all the references. Someone/s has done some research.
Sciencemag has also taken an interest in her, with tons of references.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral
“…Two months later, the entire Science paper was retracted. Mikovits refused to sign the retraction notice, but she took part in another major replication effort. That $2.3 million study, led by Ian Lipkin of Columbia University and funded by the National Institutes of Health, was “the definitive answer,” Mikovits said at a September 2012 press conference where the results were announced. The rigorous study looked for XMRV in blinded blood samples from nearly 300 people, half of whom had the disease, and none had the virus. “There is no evidence that XMRV is a human pathogen,” Mikovits conceded….
Mikovits has not published anything in the scientific literature since 2012. But she soon began to promote the XMRV hypothesis again, and attack the Lipkin study that she agreed had put the issue to rest. She has weighed in on the autism debate with controversial theories about causes and treatments. Her discredited work and her legal travails have made her a martyr in the eyes of some.”
So I’ve got a new theory about you, Gordon, a nicer one.
You are a sympathetic guy who takes in lonely opinions like stray dogs. You give them a home and lots of love, and take them on long walks down Blog Street. In a world that is cruel to loners and mavericks, you are their defender and champion.
The alarmists keep calculating the temperature to a hundreds of a degree over the last few years as some kind of proof there is something wrong with the climate. When in the history was it the temperature was always the same and not going up or down ???
When looking at historical climate record it is totally obvious the temperature is constantly swinging up and down like a Jojo, of course you have to look at the real data not the highly smoothed out averaged charts the climate shysters put out for common lowest denominators. It always went up just before it turned down and always went down before it turned up , except until now when few rainmakers placed on the pedestal by politicians decided it will go only up and up into eternity unless you pay them millions dollars.
The temperature rise of the past 50 or so years have its underlying causes laid down since 100 years before that because of the slow ocean overturning and Sun activity cycles and things like that.
The climate wannabees who keep drawing straight line trends and projecting them in to the future as some kind of climate forecasting will almost always be wrong other than by some other unrelated coincidence.
They will never identify the underlying causes of the upcoming flip over change, and they will never foresee the turning point.
Climate has always changed. Interannual variability in global temperature has always been there.
No problem, right? You think ‘alarmists’ deny these things?
These things can be true at the same time as acknowledging that the globe has been warming for the last 100 years or so, and that the primary cause since the mid 20th century is anthropogenic emissions of CO2, according to the best scientific understanding.
Please no more straw men.
barry says:
These things can be true at the same time as acknowledging that the globe has been warming for the last 100 years or so, and that the primary cause since the mid 20th century is anthropogenic emissions of CO2, according to the best scientific understanding.
———————–
Nothing at all scientific about that statement Barry.
Define: “best”; quantify: “primary cause”. Those words have wide ranges of meaning. I tend to think even most skeptics acknowledge the warming that has been quantified to contain various amounts of “UHI”, “UHI sampling pollution”, “UHI estimation error”, “land use change”, “land use change measurement error”, “irrigation projects”, “irrigation project estimation error”, “weather station sampling error”, “weather station adjustment error”, “weather station measuring inconsistency”, “weather station instrumentation change error”, “weather station instrumentation change estimation error”,”weatheer station relocation error”, “compilation errors”, “compilation bias errors”, “compilation bias errors”, “interpolation error”, “kriging error”. I have probably only scratched the surface of sources of error above in trying to put together a list of potential error and how such errors can be increased through combinations of various types of error.
Its especially tough when no transparent and enforced professional standards exist and when most efforts to test the results are performed by those who have openly expressed support for the original findings or are conflicted through receiving funding from the same sources as the original work with no direct liability exposure.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/point-estimators/
bill hunter
” I tend to think even most skeptics acknowledge the warming that has been quantified to contain various amounts of… ”
Instead of presenting a link to rather trivial things known since decades, what about links pointing to documents containing real analysis, based on mathematical proofs of these ‘various amounts’ ?
Feel free to show some of them.
And PLEASE: nothing coming from the usual corners Heller aka Goddard, hockeyschtick, Gosselin’s Trickszone etc etc.
J.-P. D.
How about you retards go make your demented circular arguments into somebody else’s thread
Bindidon says: Instead of presenting a link to rather trivial things known since decades, what about links pointing to documents containing real analysis, based on mathematical proofs of these various amounts ?
Feel free to show some of them.
And PLEASE: nothing coming from the usual corners Heller aka Goddard, hockeyschtick, Gosselins Trickszone etc etc.
————————
Well you may not be aware that your entire opinion is based on the fallacy of appealing to authority. . . .and cherry picked authority at that.
Then you want me to do your job for you.
LMAO!!
bill hunter
Rather than laughing your ass off it would seem Bindidon is more in tune with the science than you. You sound like you get your “science” from blogs.
Here is one article on the actual work they do to try and look at the various errors and correct for them. I am sure you could read some real studies on the topic if you were interested then come back with good valid complaints based upon flaws you have found in the research material.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094
Getting support from someone like Eben who posts Flat-Earth nonsense videos on this blog would not be someone I would have supporting me. Eben is not a bright person and he seems to have very little actual science education. He is a mindless contrarian like Gordon Robertson. They blindly believe any contrarian opinion and do not have enough real science training to see the many flaws in the views. Eben is probably less intelligent than Robertson as I have not seen Robertson post video links to Flat-Earth material.
Norman says:
Rather than laughing your ass off it would seem Bindidon is more in tune with the science than you. You sound like you get your science from blogs.
——————–
Thats a laugher too. Bindidon and you seem to think that being in tune with science is listening to science pundits like a teenager swooning over a young movie star.
I am a little more practical in understanding that without enforced professional standards any expert is going to say exactly what he believes will be most advantageous to his personal needs. And just like religion he will then do his best to sell it as the personal needs of everybody else.
And just like just about anybody who expresses what they feel will be most advantageous to themselves often think about the things they probably should avoid saying.
Norman says:
Here is one article on the actual work they do to try and look at the various errors and correct for them. I am sure you could read some real studies on the topic if you were interested then come back with good valid complaints based upon flaws you have found in the research material.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094
——————————
Nothing surprising about that. Sometimes with sufficient effort you can convince others to believe what you believe. Of course be aware of the single payer system with major institutions the largest recipients watching the gates of science to an extent they will go after your job, block your publications, slander you, fire you, and use your head on a stake as a warning against others daring to venture down the same course.
Blogs? LMAO! The more you go after them the more money they make. Being on the hit list is a matter of pride. Such is the nature of politics, not science.
Norman says:
Getting support from someone like Eben who posts Flat-Earth nonsense videos on this blog would not be someone I would have supporting me.
———————–
Sure thing. You just love those folks that call up journal editors and threaten them from never seeing another publication from a major institution if the ever publish somebody again. Right?
Norman says:
Eben is not a bright person and he seems to have very little actual science education. He is a mindless contrarian like Gordon Robertson. They blindly believe any contrarian opinion and do not have enough real science training to see the many flaws in the views. Eben is probably less intelligent than Robertson as I have not seen Robertson post video links to Flat-Earth material.
————————-
And you say that with absolutely no proof for your position and while simultaneously not putting up a shred of a scientific argument that Eben is incorrect. I guess its either because you don’t know squat or it could be because Eben is right?
bill hunter
Do you actually work in a scientific research field where you can validate your accusations on how science works? Or are you just making up this material based upon someone else’s opinion or a few contrarians that win support or common people who have no science background but pretend to be experts because they read material from a few scientists that are upset and can write anything they want?
ON EBEN YOU SAY: “And you say that with absolutely no proof for your position and while simultaneously not putting up a shred of a scientific argument that Eben is incorrect. I guess its either because you dont know squat or it could be because Eben is right?”
Okay if you are a Flat-Earther I guess a rational conversation on science will not be possible with you. Then I guess you are just another false contrarian peddling nonsense on a blog because you have a religious objective in generating converts to the religion (one based upon lies, deception and distortion of facts).
Norman says:
May 11, 2020 at 4:30 AM
bill hunter
Do you actually work in a scientific research field where you can validate your accusations on how science works? Or are you just making up this material based upon someone elses opinion or a few contrarians that win support or common people who have no science background but pretend to be experts because they read material from a few scientists that are upset and can write anything they want?
ON EBEN YOU SAY: And you say that with absolutely no proof for your position and while simultaneously not putting up a shred of a scientific argument that Eben is incorrect. I guess its either because you dont know squat or it could be because Eben is right?
Okay if you are a Flat-Earther I guess a rational conversation on science will not be possible with you. Then I guess you are just another false contrarian peddling nonsense on a blog because you have a religious objective in generating converts to the religion (one based upon lies, deception and distortion of facts).
Its rather revealing Norman that your idea of a science debate is to handwave scientists away as being ‘upset’. ‘flat earther’. ‘rational conversation’, ‘false contrarian peddling nonsense’, ‘religious objective’, ‘lies’, ‘deception’, ‘distortion’.
Where is your science argument that takes down what anybody you place in those categories?
bill hunter
It seems you intentionally avoided by question to you. I will ask again.
MY QUESTION TO YOU: Do you actually work in a scientific research field where you can validate your accusations on how science works
YOU: “Where is your science argument that takes down what anybody you place in those categories?”
I already gave you one. You seem to have rejected it with a contrarian religious point: “Thats a laugher too. Bindidon and you seem to think that being in tune with science is listening to science pundits like a teenager swooning over a young movie star.
I am a little more practical in understanding that without enforced professional standards any expert is going to say exactly what he believes will be most advantageous to his personal needs. And just like religion he will then do his best to sell it as the personal needs of everybody else.”
Basically you are peddling the religion of lies based upon the false and misleading arguments of contrarians. There is not possible discussion with you unless you become open minded and consider the very real possibility that most scientists are still honest researchers that are working hard to find the Truth. There are a few bad apples as with all fields. Most bad apples are the contrarians you believe preach Gospel Truth and are honest but the vast majority of research scientists are peddling lies for a paycheck. I have no clue what you do for a living, I am most certain it has nothing to do with any science field or research group. You don’t even appear scientifically literate. Your arguments are not even your original ideas. I can read most those on contrarian blogs. The peddle the notion that established science is false and they (the few) are the only ones with the Truth. Science illiterates like you eat the message with vigor. It makes you feel smart when you are not able to read a science textbook (above you intelligence level). You are in the cult of “US against the WORLD” and get a sense of superiority that the highly intelligent research scientists are phony so you don’t need to learn their brand of science, just listen to a few contrarians and you are set. Weird how you guys justify your lack of science knowledge and pretend to know what you are talking about. Nothing I can do will convince you. And you, with zero supporting evidence for you claims, will never convince me. If you want to convince me, gather good solid evidence that research scientists, in mass, are producing false and untrue data to support a paycheck. Until you do this you will gain no credibility with scientist. You can convince like minded contrarians like yourself (Eben and Gordon Robertson) that you are credible. It seems you guys support your unsupported propaganda when you have like minded people agreeing with you.
I await and answer to my initial question. Please respond. Thank you.
Eben
” How about you retards go make your demented circular arguments into somebody elses thread ”
What about YOU, simple-minded flat-earthist and totally uneducated climate denialist leaving yourself this thread, thus making place for more intelligent people?
J.-P. D.
Norman says:
MY QUESTION TO YOU: Do you actually work?
————————-
yes
Norman says:
Basically you are peddling the religion of lies based upon the false and misleading arguments of contrarians. There is not possible discussion with you unless you become open minded and consider the very real possibility that most scientists are still honest researchers that are working hard to find the Truth.
—————————–
I have no idea where you got all that. I don’t think scientists lie anymore than anybody else. Perhaps you are too young, too naive, and too stupid and believe they are Saints.
Norman says:
There are a few bad apples as with all fields. Most bad apples are the contrarians you believe preach Gospel Truth and are honest but the vast majority of research scientists are peddling lies for a paycheck.
——————
that paragraph doesn’t make any sense.
Norman says:
I have no clue what you do for a living, I am most certain it has nothing to do with any science field or research group. You don’t even appear scientifically literate. Your arguments are not even your original ideas. I can read most those on contrarian blogs.
————————-
Most of what are on true skeptic blogs are correct. Skeptics don’t go around peddling suspicions as facts.
Norman says:
The peddle the notion that established science is false and they (the few) are the only ones with the Truth. Science illiterates like you eat the message with vigor. It makes you feel smart when you are not able to read a science textbook (above you intelligence level). You are in the cult of “US against the WORLD” and get a sense of superiority that the highly intelligent research scientists are phony so you don’t need to learn their brand of science, just listen to a few contrarians and you are set. Weird how you guys justify your lack of science knowledge and pretend to know what you are talking about.
—————–
pure bullshit
Norman says:
Nothing I can do will convince you.
————————–
no you will never convince me as long as all you do is babble.
Norman says:
And you, with zero supporting evidence for you claims, will never convince me. If you want to convince me, gather good solid evidence that research scientists, in mass, are producing false and untrue data to support a paycheck. Until you do this you will gain no credibility with scientist. You can convince like minded contrarians like yourself (Eben and Gordon Robertson) that you are credible. It seems you guys support your unsupported propaganda when you have like minded people agreeing with you.
—————————
I am not trying to convince you that scientists are producing false and untrue data. I am only saying that their data is not convincing. All that does is provide more evidence that you are
too young, too naive, and too stupid because you are completely convinced by it.
bill hunter
YOU: “I am not trying to convince you that scientists are producing false and untrue data. I am only saying that their data is not convincing. All that does is provide more evidence that you are
too young, too naive, and too stupid because you are completely convinced by it.”
Okay what part of the evidence or data do you believe is not convincing to you? You make claims but you support none of them. Then you call me stupid or naïve. Not completely convinced by anything but your accusations come with no supporting evidence. You read some contrarian blogs where they intentionally distort information and you come here with nothing to support what you allege.
Can you at least attempt to provide some proof that the data is not convincing? What data do you reject? Maybe link to a science article on the topic you disagree (maybe surface temperature record) then point out flaws in the study in a logical systematic way. Now you are a valid skeptic. Just saying the data is not convincing does not make you very smart. It is an overly simplified statement with zero supporting evidence. Kind of a meaningless message. Do you believe the world is flat?
Norman says: – ,Can you at least attempt to provide some proof that the data is not convincing? What data do you reject? Maybe link to a science article on the topic you disagree (maybe surface temperature record) then point out flaws in the study in a logical systematic way. Now you are a valid skeptic. Just saying the data is not convincing does not make you very smart. It is an overly simplified statement with zero supporting evidence. Kind of a meaningless message. Do you believe the world is flat? ‘
Actually thats pretty easy. Should be for you too if you had any experience in matters like this.
I have strongly held this view since almost the first day I began research in this area because it was patently obvious to me and my professional experience. My reply to bdgwx above is in the same vein and I will give you the same reference.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/
Its well understood by proponents of the theory that the authorities bestow rich rewards upon those who aid the political agenda who suucceed even partly in squelching doubt by altering history. Gores Hockey Stick exemplifies it and all those who have tried to find ways to make historic climate variation disappear. But you can’t make a fossil record disappear and in the natural sciences I am involved with the fossil record corresponds to natural climate variations on multi-decadal and longer time scales.
I am concerned about the lack of explanations for such events as the Younger Dryas, 8.2k event, LIA, and more recent multi-decadal warming periods seen in the early 18th century and early 20th century.
The hope to disappear all that and thus cool skepticism is more political than honest scientific inquiry. the whole purpose of which is to advance a very narrow viewpoint of climate change.
Globe has been warming for the last 100 years.
Primary cause is increased solar activity following mini ice age. The temperature can do nothing but go up as the ice melts.
How does declining solar activity after 1960 cause the Earth energy imbalance to increase to +0.6 W/m^2 despite an increase in aerosols that produce a negative radiative force?
The top expert in that Dr. Richard Lindzen states that the net radiative forcing effect of aerosols is unknown.
What do other top experts think?
How does that make declining solar activity a warming force?
it doesnt make declining solar activity a warming force bdgwx.
what is needed is some smarts and experience with really big systems to understand why.
A recovery from the LIA requires and understanding of the behavior of large systems.
Let me give you an example. Lets hypothesize that a change in solar output in 1700 produced a gross solar wattage output the equivalent of what is believed as prefeedback CO2 sensitivity that produces 1 deg C warming.
The only difference here is that solar wattage increases perform differently than uniformly distributed forcings.
So what do you get? Well you get 1/4the the rate of CO2 prefeedback
and you get 1/2 a degree of uniform surface temperature feedback for the 3/4 degree warming we have seen in the modern era.
But you also get 2 degrees of direct feedback from increased water vapor simply from evaporation of water during the well lit portions of the day.
So we could be looking at essentially the same output from a smaller change in solar. I am not arguing this is true but follow along further.
OK so we have the 2.75 degree warming as just a hypothesis. And lets say we have seen 1.25 degrees of it so far and solar declines some. What happens? Well if solar doesn’t decline by 2/3rds of the original increase it keeps warming. The lets say maybe we finally hit 2/3rds loss of the original increase in solar cycle 24. What happens? Well it needs about a decade to cool of the upper ocean
Let’s discuss that scenario. I want to make sure I’m right about the following…
1 unit of solar increase leads to 2.75C of warming.
1/3 unit of solar increase leads to 1.25C of warming.
…correct?
If 1 unit of solar increase leads to 2.75C and if only 1.25C occurred at the point the solar increase dropped to say 1/2 of a unit then yes further warming would occur. It would not make it to 2.75C, but it would still be > 1.25C.
However…and this is the crucial point…the warming would proceed at a slower rate and the energy imbalance on the planet would be lower than it was before.
We observe the opposite happened. At about the same time solar output declined the warming rate and energy imbalance actually increased.
But there is yet a 2nd way we can eliminate this scenario. That is the cooling stratosphere. If a brightening Sun were the cause of the warming then you would expect the stratosphere to warm. The only thing that can explain warming down low and cooling up high is a thermal barrier that has been placed between the two points.
bdgwx says:
Lets discuss that scenario. I want to make sure Im right about the following
1 unit of solar increase leads to 2.75C of warming.
1/3 unit of solar increase leads to 1.25C of warming.
correct?
——————–
No! The target would be .92C which would be cooler than where the system was at the time the target changed by 2/3rds. The .92 is just a straight up climate sensitivity multiple based upon the original forcing. If that forcing reduced midway to ECS there would be a new ECS target.
For a 1/3rd drop in solar activity the ECS target would be 1.83 so warming would continue albiet at a slower pace.
For a 2/3rd drop in solar activity the ECS target would be .92 cooler than current. But TCR might be delayed somewhat and cooling not immediately obvious because of those up to 10 year ocean anomalies that has been accepted (range of 7 to 10 years) which prompted people to estimate warming in 10 year increments (step changes)
All I was demonstrating is that simply because solar activity decreased its important to know by how much, what both TCR and ECS amount to, and continue to acknowledge the reason for step change predictions.
However, the take home message with multi-decadal natural variation is you can throw out 10 year step changes and instead be looking at 3 to 10 decades instead as delays in warming or cooling. Throw in some of the bigger natural changes like YD, 8.2k, and LIA and you have a wide range of natural variation.
If 1 unit of solar increase leads to 2.75C and if only 1.25C occurred at the point the solar increase dropped to say 1/2 of a unit then yes further warming would occur. It would not make it to 2.75C, but it would still be > 1.25C.
Howeverand this is the crucial pointthe warming would proceed at a slower rate and the energy imbalance on the planet would be lower than it was before.
We observe the opposite happened. At about the same time solar output declined the warming rate and energy imbalance actually increased.
But there is yet a 2nd way we can eliminate this scenario. That is the cooling stratosphere. If a brightening Sun were the cause of the warming then you would expect the stratosphere to warm. The only thing that can explain warming down low and cooling up high is a thermal barrier that has been placed between the two points.
“The top expert”
Im just astounded that Bill realizes there are science experts.
And even more astounded that he thinks we should pay attention to their opinions.
bdgwx says:
We observe the opposite happened. At about the same time solar output declined the warming rate and energy imbalance actually increased.
But there is yet a 2nd way we can eliminate this scenario. That is the cooling stratosphere. If a brightening Sun were the cause of the warming then you would expect the stratosphere to warm. The only thing that can explain warming down low and cooling up high is a thermal barrier that has been placed between the two points.
——————————-
that would only be a concern if you actually believed the climate was incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. the climate can be affected by long and short solar affects all creating perhaps variable cloud effects with in a saturated greenhouse environment and be affected by internal ocean current variations lsting anywhere from a few years to much longer. we would see only the sum of the effects on a thermometer
Nate says:
The top expert
Im just astounded that Bill realizes there are science experts.
And even more astounded that he thinks we should pay attention to their opinions.
———————
aerosols are more of an excuse for model failures than anything else
a bit of research will tell you little is known about them either their effects or their history.
what that suggests is the models didn’t properly measure warming and no amount of debate or argument is going to fix the problem. Time to start over do the research on aerosols in a lab to better understand their effects, incorporate those effects in a model, run the model then watch he next 30 years or so and see if you finally got it right. But on the other hand by the time that got done doomsday will have come and gone a few more times. probably time to grow some balls and hang on tight for the ride.
“aerosols are more of an excuse for model failures”
We know that aerosols in the stratosphere can make a big contribution, from successful modeling of volcanoes effect on global temp, like Pinatubo.
They are part of the story, not an excuse.
But, yes there are still some unknowns. Thats why people do science.
Ive seen work on measurements of ‘dimming’ that occurred mid-late 20th century due to agricultural dust and pollution. Seems to have contributed to cooling.
Not sure the dust has settled (ha!) on that one yet.
Ken
” Primary cause is increased solar activity following mini ice age. ”
Wooow! Genial, sounds terribly good:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12HtQq7eVIaJ4zn182I6Kzs5fhxxvZzT7/view
{ Japan’s Met Agency produces since evah the coolest surface temperature record – of course because they don’t infill empty regions through interpolation, ha ha. }
*
” The temperature can do nothing but go up as the ice melts. ”
Aha. I would rather say: the ice can do nothing but melt as the temperature goes up.
Look at the ice record e.g. in HadISST1, build its percentile inverse, and compare that to the temperature in the graph above.
J.-P. D.
Climate shystering lesson 101
https://bit.ly/3fCphMU
barry…”Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is a discredited American ex-research scientist[2][3][10][11][12] who is known for her anti-vaccination activism,[12][13] promotion of conspiracy theories, and scientific misconduct.[6][7][8][9].”
Once again, Barry, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of scientific information since anyone can post their views there. They claim she is discredited for one paper. Robert Gallo, who she mentions in her video, is a discredited scientists for claiming cancer is caused by a virus.
They claim she is spreading propaganda and has participated in scientific misconduct, neither claim being backed by scientific evidence.
I think you are an Australian, maybe my memory is frizzed. Anyway, Australian researcher Barry Marshall, had similar claims made against him when he claimed stomach ulcers were cause by a bacterium, heliobacter pylori. He was essentially laughed out of town and a paper he submitted was rejected. The journal editor not only rejected the paper, he commented that the paper was in the top ten of the worst papers ever submitted.
Of course, Barry Marshall was right but he had to make himself extremely ill by drinking a concoction with the bacteria. He healed himself with antibiotic and only then was he taken seriously.
I have tried to listen to this woman objectively looking for loopholes in her arguments. One I found is in her claim that HIV has been isolated which is not true. The scientist credited with discovering HIV claims he did not isolate HIV nor has he seen it with an electron microscope. I think what Judy is calling isolation is the same nonsense used today to infer a virus.
I find her claims to be in the ballpark of science. She talks like a scientist, which she is, an immunologist. She gives pretty damning evidence against Fauci and his connection to the Wuhan, China labs. She gave a figure of the money exchanged between US sources and Wuhan.
She has not spoken out again vaccinations, in fact, she claimed to support them. What she spoke out against was the prospect of a vaccine for the RNA-based viral infections. She claimed there is no vaccine for any since HIV. She is an immunologist and vaccines are part of her work. She fears a useless vaccine will be offered.
She mentioned something important. The corona virus family comes from animals and she claimed any animal-based flu shot could contain corona virus. In Italy, preceding the covid outbreak, Italians had been given flu shots that contained the H1N1 virus. That convinced me never to get a flu shot again.
She claimed to work with the US Army infectious disease control where they actually work creating bio-weapons and finding antidotes for chemical warfare. She claimed to have worked on the ebola virus and I know Kary Mullis did the same for the US Army with anthrax. Both were working on ways to moderate the effect of either infection. Mullis described the process as teaching the immune system to recognize an infection it had not learned to eliminate. He claimed to have succeeded with anthrax.
Her claims about Fauci interfering in her attempt to publish a paper about HIV/AIDS rings true because there were shenanigans going on at the time with Gallo. She claims Fauci held up her paper to give Gallo the chance to lay a claim to credit him for finding the virus whereas it later came out that he had stolen intellectual property from Luc Montagnier, who discovered the virus.
The French government complained to the US government over the theft and it was settled out of court. Gallo had claimed patents on the two HIV tests and Montagnier was awarded half the profits.
She claimed Fauci has patents as well and he did not deny that, He claimed it was a requirement of his department that he file patents. Sure, Anthony, and I suppose you don’t get any money. She claimed those involved with covid vaccine patents stand to make billions.
She claimed pharmaceutical companies are withholding medicines, suggesting sick people were more profitable. In Germany, Big Pharma tried to have vitamins banned. Big Pharma does not like healthy people. They took cellular nutritionist Matthias Rath to court for claiming illnesses could be treated with natural nutrients and the judge threw the case out, claiming there was no need to disbelieve the credentials of Rath and his claims.
All in all, I am wondering why there is a rush on to discredit this woman. What’s the problem? I am more disturbed by the infringement on her right of free speech as guaranteed by the US constitution. She claims she was arrested without a warrant and held without charges.
She has been forbidden to pursue her case in court. What kind of country has the US become? Either charge the woman so she can defend herself or leave her alone.
.
Barry’s earlier comments and mine were advanced further by your post.
The point is, she makes a statement. Thats her version of events. It happens to align well with your conspiratorial thinking.
Therefore her statement is accepted as fact.
Problem is, in court, it would not be accepted as fact. Because a number of others could testify that here statement is false. As I noted above.
But you guys still accept it as fact.
In addition, in court, her history of deception could be brought out to show she lacks credibility.
She asserts that she was fired and arrested to keep her silent on warning about an XMRV virus that causes Autism and CFS and is in vaccines.
That all sounds great to anti-vaxxers and conspiracy minded and Fauci haters, but none of it is true.
Her own research on that particular virus was proven wrong and retracted.
She participated in the multi-lab effort to replicate the work, and in the end SHE ADMITTED that is was wrong and that there was no evidence linking it to CFS, as you can see in this video of her at a conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVu-lGSnGC0
The large scale effort to replicate her work on XMRV were encouraged by Fauci. She claimed Fauci sent an email to her boss threatening her arrest. No such email exists.
There is no evidence of XMRV in vaccines, pure speculation.
There is no evidence linking XMRV to Autism. Made up.
She was arrested for stealing lab notebooks from her former employer. There was a valid search warrant. She was charged. A co-worker admitted assisting her. Another co-worker admitted she was asked to help her. She returned the material and the charges were dropped.
In the 80s she did work related to HIV and AIDS. She clearly understands that AIDS is caused by HIV.
It’s interesting that you are certain she is lying about HIV.
But still, you believe everything else she says about Fauci and vaccines and conspiracies and COVID..
nate…”The point is, she makes a statement. Thats her version of events. It happens to align well with your conspiratorial thinking.
Therefore her statement is accepted as fact.
Problem is, in court, it would not be accepted as fact. Because a number of others could testify that here statement is false. As I noted above”.
*****
Your theory sounds fine on the face of it but she cannot get to court, or even discuss her case, because she is under a gag order of some kind. Why would anyone go to such lengths to silence a person? What secrets are they trying to withhold at NIAID?
You can claim conspiratorial thinking all you want, but I have been following the facts of this nonsense for at least 20 years. I weighed all the facts initially which were essentially as follows:
1)we have a new virus (HIV) which acts as no other virus has ever acted and is able to go dormant in an infected person for some 15 – 20 years before awakening and suddenly destroying an immune system.
-The virus is out-numbered something like 800 to one by immune systems cells yet it manages to overwhelm them.
-The 30 opportunistic infections collectively known as AIDS can become active when HIV destroys the immune system. One of those OFs is tuberculosis. If you have TB they have a treatment to heal it. If you have TB and are HIV positive they give you toxic antivirals that can kill you or even cause AIDS (IRS).
2)no virus known as HIV has ever been isolated, purified, or seen with an electron microscope. The founder of the virus, Luc Montagnier, has admitted he INFERRED a virus based on RNA found in a person with AIDS.
-Duesberg, an expert in retroviruses, who isolated the first cancer gene and mapped its DNA, was inducted into the National Academy of Science for his work. He claimed HIV could not possibly overwhelm a healthy immune system.
-Duesberg pointed out, at the time, circa 1983, that AIDS in North America involved mainly male homosexuals and no known virus could attack only males. He claimed the obvious, that the men in question were gathering in steam baths in New York and San Francisco and having sex with multiple partners while consuming up to 6 designer drugs including cocaine and amyl nitrate.
Duesberg claimed it was life style causing AIDS, not a virus. Nearly 40 years alter, Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, is claiming the same thing, that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. The difference is, Duesberg lost his career while Montagnier, a Nobelist, has thrived. Why has no one apologized to Duesberg for wrecking his life?
They are doing exactly the same thing to this lady as they did to Duesberg. She is right, science is corrupt.
-the primary AIDS opportunistic infections infecting those men were Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Pneumocystitis pneumonia.Kaposi’s sarcoma is a skin cancer known to be caused by the herpes virus, which is also related to a high risk lifestyle. In other words, it does not affect people in monogamous relationships, either heterosexual or homosexual.
-pneumocystitis pneumonia is caused by fungus called Pneumocystis jirovecii. Nobelist Kary Mullis pointed out the obvious. If you hang around in steam baths with anal bacteria being transmitted by the steam and/or inhale amyl nitrate, you are likely to get a fungal lung infection.
**********
Come on Nate, this is a no-brainer. Only 16% of male homosexuals get AIDS and they are the ones who practice this kind of high risk behavior.
This is a case of the Emperor walking around naked and no one having the guts to mention it. Duesberg and Mullis mentioned the obvious and it cost Duesberg his career. As Mullis used to joke, they can’t touch him because he’s a Nobelist.
“They are doing exactly the same thing to this lady as they did to Duesberg. She is right, science is corrupt.”
Except, on the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDs, she would say you are full of crap.
She would know, she researched it, and you did not.
Is she truthful about that?
Not that, but you believe she is truthful about everything else, because it does align with your conspiratorial beliefs?
“Come on Nate, this is a no-brainer. Only 16% of male homosexuals get AIDS and they are the ones who practice this kind of high risk behavior.”
The virus is well known to be transmitted sexually or through blood transfusions. If high risk means no condom then of course HIV transfer is more likley.
When HIV infected people suddenly stopped dying after they began taking the anti-HIV cocktail…c’mon THAT is a no-brainer that takes real effort to deny.
The ant-viral therapy demonstrably works. It prevented deaths of hundreds of thousands. In medical science, this is about as definitive as it ever gets.
And ive repeatedly asked you to show evidence that it doesnt work.
I get nothing.
Do facts matter to you?
“she is under a gag order ”
Hardly, she’s selling a book and a movie that tells all.
Gordon,
“You can claim conspiratorial thinking all you want, but I have been following the facts of this nonsense for at least 20 years…”
You procced to talk about HIV and AIDS, which are completely irrelevant to the veracity of Mikovits claims.
You connect Mikovits claims to your conspiracy beliefs about HIV/AIDS, even though your star witness has views quite different from you on that subject. Even though the HIV/AIDS conspiracy you hold is completely irrelevant to whether her version of events is true or not.
This is what conspiracy theorists do, link similar sounding stuff together to bolster their conspiracy ideation, creating patterns of thought, even though the loose links don’t have any real traction.
If there is evidence that the links don’t hold? Trash that evidence. Information that works to undo the conspiracy theory? It’s part of the smokescreen supporting the hoax.
These tactics make the conspiracy ideation self-fulfilling. True skepticism is the cure for this.
So instead of you saying the Mikovits is being “discredited” in science articles, you would actually read them neurtrally, follow the links and THEN judge if the criticism has merit.
But you don’t do that, Gordon. And it’s obvious you don’t. You would otherwise talk specfifically about the criticism instead of panning it in one generalized statement. This is not remotely skeptical of you.
This article in Science fact-checks the claims in her video.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral
nate…”This article in Science fact-checks the claims in her video”.
This is not a fact check, it’s an attempt to discredit.
In one part they mention Gallo in a good light re his contribution to the discovery of HIV. They failed to reveal that he was charged by Montagnier of stealing his work and when the French government complained to the US government and out of court settlement was reached. Gallo, who took out patents on both HIV tests was forced to split the profits with Montagnier.
I have seen this nonsense before in defence of a paradigm. It’s deja vu based on the arguments put forth against Duesberg and they were all wrong. Duesberg has been vindicated, albeit too late.
Besides, the Science article is seriously biased. I have watched the video several times and the woman in question makes no rash claims. She was arrested without a warrant and literally dragged from her home. What could she possibly have taken that was so important? If there are secrets in questions related to scientific misconduct as she is claiming the public deserves to hear about it. As it stands, the public will learn nothing since a gag order has been imposed.
This is unacceptable behaviour in a democracy. Those working in the field of science need to be more transparent and their profiteering from research funded by the public needs to be revealed. I’d like to see the stipends Fauci receives from drug companies for pushing their products and how much he stands to make from a vaccine.
“She makes no rash claims. She was arrested witho”
Just false ones. You believe her claims without bothering to verify them. If you did, you would see contradictions.
Clearly believing her works better for your ego.
Im shocked to see that there is a link between climate denial and Covid denial people.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fight-over-viruss-death-toll-162445594.html
Yeah you latched on to that one scientifically right Nate? No doubt the unreferenced and unattributed comment: ‘Never mind the experts who said that, if anything, the death toll was being vastly undercounted.’ was a total lock for you right?
bill ….”Never mind the experts who said that, if anything, the death toll was being vastly undercounted. ”
Bill…the death toll in the States went from 500 to nearly 50,000 over two weeks. Talk about exponential bs. Why are the poobahs trying to influence doctors and coroners on how to report covid deaths? It’s macabre.
Here in Canada, in the west coast province of BC, we have 5 million people and only 120 deaths ATTRIBUTED to covid. The irony is that we have over a million fairly recent Chinese immigrants all in one area and there were plane loads going back and forth between China daily during this contagion. I have yet to hear of one Chinese death in this area and obviously they spread nothing significant to the population here.
I have mingled with Asians in my area in supermarkets, mainly Chinese, who are well in the majority in my locale, well before the social distancing fantasy was introduced. I am still here to talk about it and I have not been to hospital. Nothing more than what I’d expect in a flu season.
One Asian cashier in a supermarket was wearing a mask and she had a doozer of a cough. I have since learned that the type of cloth mask she was wearing is useless against a virus, which has a diameter on average of about 100 billionths of a meter. She must have infected several hundred people during a shift yet the death toll here is 120.
Not much of a surprise IMHO. It has been documented that contrarians in one area of science tend to bleed over into other areas of science as well. Overlap is strong with climate change, ozone depletion, environmental impacts of pesticides, smoking and cancer, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, etc. In fact, pioneers of climate change misinformation like Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, among others were active in proliferating misinformation in several of these other disciplines as well. The book Merchants of Doubt has a pretty good history of how these misinformation campaigns are established and funded and the strategies they use to dispense their product…doubt. It is my understanding that even today Richard Lindzen rejects or at least is not convinced of the link between smoking and lung disease.
The book shows how the roots were in the cold war fight against communism, and how the environmental movement was seen as the next threat to free markets and liberty. Quite a naive take on economics I might add.
svante…”The book shows how the roots were in the cold war fight against communism….”
It was never a fight, it was a witch-hunt lead by McCarthy. There were actually people who believed there was a Commie under every bed. Sheer paranoia. No one was exempt, Linus Pauling had his passport taken away for daring to claim nuclear radiation was a serious health threat. David Bohm a brilliant scientist, had to escape to the UK to get away from it.
Actors like Gary Cooper were ratting on other actors. Elvis fancied himself as an informant for the FBI.
Even here in Canada, the NDP, which now refers to itself as social democrats, was a favourite target of jerks in the media. The NDP was referred to as commies, reds, and pinkos. As recently as a few years ago one Nazi media type referred to a prominent NDP candidate as a Stalinist.
With regard to environmentalists, it has never been the real environmentalist per se who was a target, it was the lunatic Green fringe who regarded trees and spotted owls as more important than humans who became a target. Eco-weenies are neither right nor left, their politics and religion are all about bizarre ideas regarding Mother Nature, or Gaia, as they refer to her in politically-correct circles.
Just to clarify, my shock was sarcasm.
Bill,
the undercount has been documented. See eg
https://tinyurl.com/y8lqkzkc
We will see how the mortality data shakes out in the end.
so total deaths are up more than official corona virus deaths.
no surprise there Nate.
We knew going into the lockdown that many deaths would result from that alone.
I don’t know if deaths from covid-19 is over or under estimated.
You though have a political opinion on the matter and what you offered as scientific evidence is a joke.
Looks like deaths from covid 19 is 16,673 and overall deaths in the period was up 4,200 more than that. plenty of potential reasons why. NY,NY was a few degrees colder than normal during that time and we know thats a killer so some excess deaths would come from that. Economics is the worlds biggest killer, so chalk up some for the lockdown. Chalk up some more for folks being asked to forego routine healthcare and exams (thats a big issue in your political circles isn’t it?), stress over fears of catching the virus no doubt knocked a few folks off, How about a few personal hygiene deaths from hoarders making essential supplies unavailable?, and biggy might sort of at least partially due to the virus but not counted as such because it didn’t come from a viral infection. . . .grief!
But you instantly concluded that viral deaths were being undercounted and you believe the same experts as your news source. LMAO!!
So my conclusion is you are acting political. The press you read is acting political. The scientists you and your press believed was acting political. Perhaps others also who have some actual evidence one way of the other aren’t acting political but acting scientific and expressing their conclusions. And myself? I believe that no doubt covid-19 deaths are over counted. Fact is when people die unless you perform an autopsy its pretty hard to pin down a cause. Thus counting everybody who died that tested positive or were within some unstated set of circumstances (were all pneumonia appearing deaths counted as covid-19?) you are going to come up with too big of a number. That one is a no brainer. But how much it would amount to and if the overcount was material is an entirely different matter. I have no idea about that. And i would still reserve some for unusual circumstances not identified by health officials but due to covid19
“And myself? I believe that no doubt covid-19 deaths are over counted.”
Im sure you have sound, non-political, reasons for believing that.
But given the unprecedented spike in deaths @ 6 x the normal rate, and the simultaneous presence of an epidemic in NYC, with a well documented high mortality rate, is there any real reason, other than politics, to seek out another significant cause?
figured you would totally miss the nuance. i acknowledged in the same paragraph that covid19 counts were both over counted and under counted at the same time for different reasons.
But you instantly took sides on that and acted like every other politician of selective recognition when you have no idea of how much of either. a mirror of the climate debate.
You cite all these mountains of intellect and great scientists who made great contributions to science as if they are in someway misinformed, confused, and beneath you. You are a leftist fool and a psychopath.
Chic Bowdrie cleaned your clock in all lines of discussion for days and you keep coming on here spewing your propagandist garbage. You should go bury your head, fool!
bdg…”It has been documented that contrarians in one area of science tend to bleed over into other areas of science as well”.
We prefer to be called skeptics and as John Christy of UAH has put it, skepticism is the hallmark of a science. The scary part is how you alarmists all horde together in your belief systems.
Gordon Robertson
Again a false and misleading post from you. Scientific Skepticism is the hallmark of science as John Christy correctly points out.
Contrarian view points are neither scientific or skeptical. They are lies from people who do it for money as Fred Seitz did with tobacco. Or fame and popularity. A contrarian is not a skeptic or valuable to the science world.
“Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.”
Empirical evidence was discovered tobacco is unhealthy can causes early death as a statistical determination.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1213751
Seitz made good money peddling the lies. They used his name and reputation to make convincing arguments. All while denying actual empirical data. That makes him a contrarian which is NOT a skeptic but a person who deals in faslehood and deception. He may have started as a good scientist but that does not mean he remained one.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz
He made some really good money with his dishonesty. No contrarians are not good or scientific. They lie and deceive like the scoundrel Peter Duesberg. Maybe a good scientist at one time but an evil destructive contrarian later. No longer looking at evidence, just distorting and deceiving people like you.
Seitz is the same. I think some of these contrarians maybe made good money for their lies and distortion. They are guilty of the things they accuse valid researchers of doing. Selling out for money. Not heroes, just villains that used their reputations as scientists to turn against their own craft of seeking truth and looking at the evidence.
I am not sure why you think you need to support dishonest people and consider their lying ways as good.
The word of the day “Obtrusive” Look it up
It is pretty funny that Alarmists call Skeptics Earth-flatters but their models are always drawn as flat earth with no night side
Just like here the night side of the globe does not exist , The only thing missing is the Turtle and Elephants carrying it
https://bit.ly/2zxbV40
Eben
You may some form of skeptic like a Philosophical Skeptic but you are not a Scientific Skeptic at all.
“Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
You post to Flat-Earth videos on this blog. Climate scientists (not all alarmists by the way, actually only a handful are, you might see that if you read scholarly scientific articles on the topic instead of reading opinions of contrarian bloggers) would not be “Flat-Earthers” at all even if Father Postma tells you such. The units used in energy budgets are in Watts/m^2. The curvature of the Earth would have zero bearing on a one square meter of surface. They do not ignore the night side at all as you falsely believe. What they do is average the amount of energy reaching a one-square meter of Earth’s surface. This averaging takes in both day and night. If you average the total energy into 24 hours it is a legitimate scientific process. The square meter surface radiates away energy 24/7 both day and night. It only receives energy for 12 hours on the Equator and the poles can receive energy for 24 hours in the summer season.
You can take actual measured values of solar input and you can find that there is not enough energy in a 24 hour period from solar input to maintain the measured output energy. Roy Spencer has done blogs on it. The surface would freeze on a summer night if a GHE was not preventing the loss of energy.
A lot of “skeptics” don’t believe in a two-way flow of energy from surface to atmosphere and from atmosphere back to surface. You probably are one of them. I tried to reason with Postma on this. I was not able to even though I proved he was wrong with direct textbook information. Did not faze him. He has his contrarian religious cult and his mindless followers believing blindly he knows what he is talking about. A true science skeptic would look at the evidence and conclude, yes there is a GHE. Adding more GHG to the atmosphere will increase the amount of IR that is emitted from the atmosphere back to the surface. How much has already been experimentally verified. Evidence suggests the effect is real. Contrarians, not interested in actual science and evidence, reject all evidence. One cannot convince the religious zealots of contrarian belief. Evidence does not change the view. I have tried. you are no exception. Science is not your goal. Spreading the Contrarian religion is your goal, even if it means linking to Flat-Earth videos.
Next time you see climate alarmists drawing a picture of warming model tell them not to forget the bottom half of it again
https://bit.ly/3br1agC
Eben
Maybe you should post more of your Flat-Earth videos from John Thor. See how many people will consider you to be an intelligent person.
Here is where you linked to this video in case you forgot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/my-presentation-to-the-pacific-pension-investment-institute/#comment-438379
Maybe bill hunter can examine it for himself unless he is also a “Flat-Earther”.
Here is a list of his videos. Maybe you two can convince others that world is Flat and we have all been lied too.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL50VqWgr-XoH9IWFYLOWiNp2v7dSKoDFA
Amazing a “Flat-Earth” conspiratorial contrarian thinks he knows more science than posters on this blog who have actually studied real science at higher levels.
I guess all that matters to you is you are a genius in your own mind. Reality is you are not very intelligent and I would think you would have great difficulty reading and understanding a science textbook in any field.
Why do they call it “Global Warming” when according to their own models it should be called “Flat Earth Warming”
https://i.postimg.cc/1zJsvky6/flatearthclimate.jpg
Eben,
The image you posted is of an energy budget model for a spherical Earth. You can tell because of the divide by 4 in regards to TSI.
The divide by 4 is what makes it “flat Earth”.
Taking an average makes the earth flat.
Right, let me get my tinfoil.
“Taking an average makes the earth flat“
No need for straw men, blob.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
May 12, 2020 at 8:45 AM
The divide by 4 is what makes it flat Earth.
LOL literally!
So let me write that down, it’s not a flat earth model.
Good to get that out of the way.
It’s either that or someone doesn’t know what a straw man argument is.
oh it is a flat earth model! its a spherical real world and the model flattens it to examine it before anybody asks any questions about what might be different with rotating spheres
Yes blob, it is a flat-Earth model, dividing by 4 does not literally flatten the real Earth.
TSI/1 is flat geometry. TSI/4 is spherical geometry. The model is therefore spherical. It is also a model for an orbiting and rotating Earth…like the real thing…since TSI is the average perpendicular flux over 1 orbital cycle and 365 rotations.
That doesn’t mean the model is perfect or without fault. There are plenty of ways to criticize it. But first you must understand the model. If you think it is a flat Earth model then you haven’t understood it.
bdgwx, why are you pretending not to understand the divide by 4 “flat Earth” arguments?
“But first you must understand the model.”
Our faux skeptics seem to always skip that step.
But somehow they are certain its wrong.
#2
bdgwx, why are you pretending not to understand the divide by 4 “flat Earth” arguments?
No pretending. It’s just how geometry works.
…but, as you know (since it has been explained to you several times)…nobody is questioning the geometry. The math is fine…
…it just does not represent the correct physics. The correct physics is that, on a second by second basis, the sun only shines on the lit hemisphere of a rotating Earth. When you divide by 4, you are in effect saying that the sun shines over the entire surface of the Earth at once. Which it does not…
…and you know this. So, back to my question…why are you pretending not to?
Nate said: Our faux skeptics seem to always skip that step.
I too have noticed that most criticisms of climate science are born out of a misunderstanding of it as opposed to the merits of it.
What I’m baffled by is that of all the models that are used by climate scientists these energy budget models are probably the simplest of them all. How is it even possible for educated people (like a certain astrophysicist) to not understand them? And if you can’t understand a simple energy budget model you’re almost certainly not going to fair any better with more complex models like GCMs.
But yeah…if you want to criticize the merits of the model you kinda need to understand it first.
DREMT said: When you divide by 4, you are in effect saying that the sun shines over the entire surface of the Earth at once.
The model doesn’t say that at all. That’s your erroneous interpretation and misunderstanding of it.
Not true.
bdgwx says:
May 13, 2020 at 8:38 AM
TSI/1 is flat geometry. TSI/4 is spherical geometry. The model is therefore spherical. It is also a model for an orbiting and rotating Earthlike the real thingsince TSI is the average perpendicular flux over 1 orbital cycle and 365 rotations.
============================
good point bdgwx. the apply the spherical division first so they can use it in a flat earth climate model. I got it!
bill,
Who is using spherical geometry in a flat Earth model? And what does that even mean?
what it mean bdgwx is because co2 is evenly distributed they want to analyze the entire spectrum of forcings as evenly distributed. so to accomplish that an earth flattening model (tsi/4) to lay the earth out flat like a Mercator projection to analyze the effects of changes in solar energy. Now any Buck Rogers fan is going to know that if your ray gun can only put out 341watts/m2 its not going to evaporate much water unless you up the wattage a bit.
So in steps you guys with a few watts of CO2 energy and viola! . . . .a global warming control knob!
bill,
First…TSI/4 does not flatten anything. In fact, it does the opposite. TSI/1 is flattened. TSI/4 converts it to a spherical shape. There is no Mercator projection involved in this model.
Second…this is an energy budget model over the course of 1 orbital cycle. Energy transfers are averaged over this period to quantify their impact over a 1 year period. The values you see are not meant to be interpreted as the flux at a specific moment in time.
Third…these energy budget models are but one among many models climate scientists use as tools for analyzing the climate. They happen to be the simplest. They have advantages and disadvantages just like any model. There are other models that consider instantaneous fluxes and their effects. However, they are quite complicated.
Some questions can be quickly answered with the energy budget model. You can answer the same question with a complex global circulation model. And you’d have access to all of the details regarding the answer. But…it’ll take you several million dollars in computer hardware, a bunch of experts, a bunch of man hours, etc. to be able to do this. You’d get a better answer and a better understanding of the processes involved for sure. But…if you just want to know that 80 W-years of energy is transferred via evaporation then an energy budget model is the obvious choice for the task.
But alas…if you want to know solar flux evaporates water at every moment in time and at every point on Earth rest assured you can certainly do that. In fact, many global circulation models that can do this are open source. You can download the code today answer these questions yourself. I think you’re going to find it tedious analyzing how much water is evaporated from a each of a 1km*1km grid mesh computed every 1-minute at 128 levels. That’s what 34,335,000,000,000,000 individual values you’d have to analyze. Totally doable…though you’d certainly the assistance of a computer due to the shear quantity of data.
norman…”Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.”
No, no no…the skeptic calls bs first then proceeds to prove it wrong.
“A lot of skeptics dont believe in a two-way flow of energy from surface to atmosphere and from atmosphere back to surface. You probably are one of them”.
You are misstating the problem, Norman. No one is questioning that EM can flow both ways, it is the inference that EM flowing from a cooler atmospheric gas to a warmer surface — that warmed the gas — can raise the temperature of the surface.
The theory contradicts the 2nd law and presents a case of perpetual motion where energy is created out of nothing. If we had a means of creating heat as you suggest we’d be using CO2 and WV as insulation and as a source of heat.
Gordon Robertson
Where do you get this definition of a Skeptic?
YOU: “No, no nothe skeptic calls bs first then proceeds to prove it wrong.”
The actual definition of just a general skeptic (not a scientific one) is:
“noun
1a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4(initial capital letter) Philosophy. a a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptic
You can’t even get the definition of skeptic right. They question things. Says nothing about calling out BS and proving it wrong.
You can’t understand how the GHE works, you have an incorrect belief on how you “think” it works but you are not willing to actually understand the process.
I will give it again (hopeless investment of time). The Cooler atmosphere is not warming the surface. The GHE effect allows the surface to reach a higher steady state temperature with a steady solar input. It is not “creating energy” It does not contradict the 2nd Law at all! It is most similar to what insulation does to either increase the temperature of a heated object or slow it cooling rate. The insulation does not increase the temperature of an object it surrounds. The insulation lowers the rate energy leaves the object and if it is heated that means it will reach a higher temperature. If non heated it means it will cool slower than a similar non insulated object.
The returning IR from the atmosphere adds energy back to the surface that would not be there without it but it does not add more back than is being lost. The Net IR surface loss comes to about 58 Watts/m^2 (depending upon the budget). The atmosphere is not adding more energy to the surface. It is reducing the NET energy loss. The surface radiates an average of 398 W/m^2, the atmosphere returns 340 W/m^2. This is NOT adding energy to the surface. It is slowing the NET loss so instead of losing 398 W/m^2 (with no GHG present) it now loses 58 W/m^2. With a NET solar input in a 24 hour cycle (comes to average 163 W/m^2) the solar input now can exceed the surface loss. The surface would get even warmer but there are other cooling mechanisms that keep it at the temperature it is. (Evaporation and thermals, some conduction but that is small because air is a good insulator).
“I will give it again (hopeless investment of time). The Cooler atmosphere is not warming the surface. The GHE effect allows the surface to reach a higher steady state temperature with a steady solar input. It is not “creating energy” It does not contradict the 2nd Law at all! It is most similar to what insulation does to either increase the temperature of a heated object or slow it cooling rate. The insulation does not increase the temperature of an object it surrounds. The insulation lowers the rate energy leaves the object and if it is heated that means it will reach a higher temperature. If non heated it means it will cool slower than a similar non insulated object.”
A muddled mass of self-contradiction and semantics.
DREMT
Not really as contradictory as you presume.
It is correct that insulation is not what is increasing temperature of an object. It is true that insulation will cause the temperature of a HEATED object to reach a higher temperature. The insulation is not increasing the temperature on its own. Just surrounding an object with insulation will not cause its temperature to go up. That is why I put in the statement “It is most similar to what insulation does to either increase the temperature of a heated object”
Do you get it?
Insulation alone is not what causes any object to get hotter. It is the energy (heat) you are adding that causes the temperature to rise. That is why I stated “The insulation does not increase the temperature of an object it surrounds”
Hopefully you can understand the difference between the two statements and the intended implication of them. A contradiction would only be correct if I did not stipulate two cases. One heated and one not. Perhaps my clarification will help you see the point.
Norman, why pretend that the GHE is something that you either:
a) understand and accept is real.
b) don’t understand and so don’t accept is real.
There is also:
c) understand and thus realize is not real.
You people want to argue that the GHE is insulation, whilst simultaneously arguing that it isn’t insulation. I would have a lot more respect for GHE-believers if they would just once and for all commit themselves to stating that they believe that the GHE is an insulative effect. Instead of saying it’s “like” insulation or something stupid like that. The trouble is that once you commit to claiming it’s an insulative effect, all anyone needs to do is point out that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not absorp.tion/emission. Then you’re screwed, so this is why you keep your definitions fluid and engage in your semantic nonsense like claiming “results in a higher equilibrium temperature” is somehow different to “warms”.
“A muddled mass of self-contradiction and semantics.”
It was perfectly clear. The fact that you cant decipher it, or even state what is wrong is pretty telling.
Insulation has been explained to you dozens of times, and you still dont seem to grasp the basic concept.
You dont understand why things can be radiatively insulated.
You don’t understand how heat flow reduced with insulation.
Your lack of understanding is not equal to scientist’s.
Your lack of understanding of science doesnt make it wrong.
#2
Norman, why pretend that the GHE is something that you either:
a) understand and accept is real.
b) don’t understand and so don’t accept is real.
There is also:
c) understand and thus realize is not real.
You people want to argue that the GHE is insulation, whilst simultaneously arguing that it isn’t insulation. I would have a lot more respect for GHE-believers if they would just once and for all commit themselves to stating they believe that the GHE is an insulative effect. Instead of saying it’s “like” insulation or something stupid like that. The trouble is that once you commit to claiming it’s an insulative effect, all anyone needs to do is point out that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not absorp.tion/emission. Then you’re screwed, so this is why you keep your definitions fluid and engage in your semantic nonsense like claiming “results in a higher equilibrium temperature” is different to “warms”.
DREMT said: all anyone needs to do is point out that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not absorp.tion/emission.
So let’s say I rig up this experiment with a heat lamp suspended above a table. I first do a control run with nothing between the heat lamp and the table surface with the lamp turned on. I then place a pan of water between the heat lamp and the table surface and observe what happens.
Do you think the pan of water will warm demonstrating that it absorbed some of the IR radiation? Or do you think the water will remain at the same temperature demonstrating that all of the IR either passed through the water or got reflected by it?
What do you a think a thermopile laying on the table facing up will record? What do you think a thermopile suspended above the water facing down will record?
Do you want to rethink your position that radiative insulation only works via reflectivity?
Your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
“Do you want to rethink your position that radiative insulation only works via reflectivity?”
You can edit Wikipedia if you like.
..
If we’re now going to accept the word of Wikipedia, then why do you reject its excellent explanation of MLI?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
That very clearly explains how even a black body can act as radiative insulator.
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
#2
Your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
“Do you want to rethink your position that radiative insulation only works via reflectivity?”
You can edit Wikipedia if you like.
Ha ha ha..
This reminds me of my childhood watching ‘the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat’ on ‘ABCs Wide World of Sports’
The poor schmo whose horrible but spectacular downhill ski crash was shown every week to represent ‘the agony of defeat’. Did he have to relive it every week?
He probably didnt watch.
But DREMT is CHOOSING to relive the agony of defeat over and over and over again.
Truly is insanity.
You know that ski jumper called from the hospital saying he was all right and wanted to try another jump.
#3
Your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
“Do you want to rethink your position that radiative insulation only works via reflectivity?”
You can edit Wikipedia if you like
Right , he was a ski jumper..
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned MLI yet, I had a whole 3-point response lined up. Perhaps bdgwx, blob or Norman will bring it up.
” nobody has mentioned MLI”
Ha ha ha, further proof that DREMT is living in an alternate reality where alternative facts rule.
One where losing = winning, defeat = victory, made-up physics = real physics.
Oh well, if nobody’s going to bring it up, I’ll post it anyway:
1) MLI is used to prevent components from over-heating due to exposure to the sun.
2) MLI uses reflective materials.
3) Though it is claimed it would work for BB materials, actual experiments using black surfaces suggest otherwise: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-468525
“actual experiments using black surfaces suggest otherwise:”
Sure if one dismisses or never bothers to look at countless textbook/published experiments and only accepts amateur-hour PSI-cult-driven blog experiments.
Sorry, the theory for BB MLI as discussed in Wikipedia is perfectly supported by numerous experiments.
Perhaps you could go investigate them.
Nothing from anyone worth responding to so far…
Since I actually have some real world experience in multi-layer insulation I might have some insight to offer.
Other than the fact that DREMPTY is usually wrong.
Since nothing is 100% efficient in reflection, multi layer insulation takes advantage of reducing heat flow by restricting heat loss or heat gain by using both reflection and absorp-tion.
If reflection was 100% efficient you would need only one layer of 100% reflective insulation to do the job.
One of my first jobs was to insulate a super-conducting magnet that operated at 4 K, basically in a bath of liquid helium, the tank that held the magnet and the liquid nitrogen was insulated by 40 layers of aluminum foil. That was then sealed in another tank cooled by liquid nitrogen which was then insulated by another 20 layers of aluminum foil.
Another example is reflective insulation of the type used to insulate the primary piping in a nuclear power plant, which is made of layers of stainless steel sheeting which is also not 100% reflective, and has many layers which also inhibit heat transfer by restricting both radiation and absorp-tion.
I think this comment explained it pretty well at the time:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28875
bobdroege says:
Since I actually have some real world experience in multi-layer insulation I might have some insight to offer.
=============================
you have experience in using a gas as multi-layer insulation?
Bill,
everything resists the flow of heat, or are you as stupid as Zoe Phin in that like DREMPTY linked to?
bobdroege says:
everything resists the flow of heat, or are you as stupid as Zoe Phin in that like DREMPTY linked to?
=======================================
I will take that as a no answer. You don’t have any experience in multilayered gaseous insulation systems.
I do. To make it work you must insert sheets of solid material for each layer you want to act as an insulator. Otherwise the gas heated at the bottom simply rises through the layer above it and you are left with single layer insulation that really isn’t heating anything a single layer can’t account for.
thus the theory constructs a hot spot to deal with the issue. interesting idea for sure but rather hard to confirm. Unfortunately I haven’t seen the equations and physics principles that conspire to create a hotspot.
I assume the problem is that water vapor condensation creates a hotspot naturally and thus its hard to separate out the GHE hotspot from the hotspot created by the release of latent heat. Perhaps you are familiar with the issue and can help?
The link was to a Hughes comment.
This one?
“Nothing to do with back radiant heating I’m afraid”
back radiant heating plays a part, Hughes is just ignorant, and biased from the start.
The multi-layer insulation I mentioned ensures more of the heat goes to heating water rather than heating the ambient air, which actually makes the steam hotter for a given heat output from the reactor.
“back radiant heating plays a part”
Incorrect, as explained.
I’ll take my thermo education from a credited source, not you DREMPTY.
Non-certified, unintelligent and overall not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Here I’ll explain it down to your level, cold thing make hot thing hotter so more better make money and keep the sticks down.
Just lashing out as usual, then.
Well then take a crack at proving there is no back radiation.
You can’t.
You can’t even link to an experiment that shows it to be minimal, just a shoddy one that doesn’t prove anything other than incompetence.
Thanks for sharing, now back to your regular programming, please stop trolling DREMPTY.
Still lashing out as usual, then.
Looks like you are giving up and refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims and refusing to defend the crappy science from the sources you think support your claims.
Surrender Monkey DREMPTY.
Weird.
“Otherwise the gas heated at the bottom simply rises through the layer above it and you are left with single layer insulation that really isnt heating anything a single layer cant account for.”
Bill, a multi-layer atmosphere model is useful. See here:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/multilayermodel.html
Tell us what you object to.
Nate says:
Bill, a multi-layer atmosphere model is useful. See here:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/multilayermodel.html
Tell us what you object to
=================================
who is ‘us’? seems you are the only having the problem you want me to explain.
i am very familiar with the described model. it was invented because the single layer model didn’t allow enough credit for CO2 to make a mountain out of a molehill.
i have seen this approach many many times. i will give it credit where its due in that it is impossible or near impossible to prove it wrong. its like a God Exists argument.
i am just disappointed in the rush to judgement that the atmosphere got warm in that manner. the flat earth model, for example, thats used to make a case for this being the correct model for explaining the green house effect. it all seems so simple. the producers of the Buck Rogers series would have loved this story line.
bill said: i am very familiar with the described model.
I don’t know. It seems as though there may still be some confusion with simple 3-layer energy budget models. Is it reasonable that the understanding of the more complicated 4-layer model here is any better? And ya know…GCMs these days use 128 layers, millions of grid cells, minutely timesteps, complex numerical cores, and a vast array of physics modules. The jump there has to be at least an order of magnitude more difficult to understand. And for the record I humbly submit that I do not fully understand the inner workings of GCMs either. Way out of my league…
bdgwx says:
bill said: i am very familiar with the described model.
I dont know. It seems as though there may still be some confusion with simple 3-layer energy budget models. Is it reasonable that the understanding of the more complicated 4-layer model here is any better? And ya knowGCMs these days use 128 layers, millions of grid cells, minutely timesteps, complex numerical cores, and a vast array of physics modules. The jump there has to be at least an order of magnitude more difficult to understand. And for the record I humbly submit that I do not fully understand the inner workings of GCMs either. Way out of my league
====================================
the problem is that the exact mechanism that moves the lack of emissions towards space that supposedly only exists within an air mass stabilized with a lapse rate back down toward the surface has never been described. Now I would have no problem at all programming this into the computer model
bdgwx says:
bill said: i am very familiar with the described model.
I dont know. It seems as though there may still be some confusion with simple 3-layer energy budget models. Is it reasonable that the understanding of the more complicated 4-layer model here is any better? And ya knowGCMs these days use 128 layers, millions of grid cells, minutely timesteps, complex numerical cores, and a vast array of physics modules. The jump there has to be at least an order of magnitude more difficult to understand. And for the record I humbly submit that I do not fully understand the inner workings of GCMs either. Way out of my league
====================================
the problem is that the exact mechanism that moves the lack of emissions towards space that supposedly only exists within an air mass stabilized with a lapse rate back down toward the surface has never been described. Now I would have no problem at all programming this into the computer model
wow instantaneous double post I was still typing!!
But it seems its been left to the imagination of the individual programmer to produce a greenhouse effect and however they program it is how those individual programmers either think it works or they simply parameterized it to produce the desired result.
that just isn’t very satisfying as an explanation.
“i am very familiar with the described model. it was invented because the single layer model didnt allow enough credit for CO2 to make a mountain out of a molehill.”
Again, no science flaw you can specify, so take the lazy way out, reflexively rely on belief/politics/ideology.
don’t give me that post normal bullshit!!!
i am not required to believe what you believe simply because i can’t prove your God doesn’t exist. that bullshit works for cowering scientists struggling to make a name for themselves as it has throughout human history to stick to proofs and not make any waves in the elitist swimming pool, but it doesn’t work on me.
“I am not required to believe what you believe”
No you just required to provide facts to back up your beliefs.
But you don’t. You offer only ideology.
just more bullshit on your part. you are one of the people trying to foist a techno’tlogy on the folks in here and have utterly failed to describe the equations used to prevent convection and condensation from foiling the payload part of your technology. you are like one those salesmen claiming a little device on the fuel system of my car will allow me to get a 100 miles per gallon. you can neither describe the technology nor demonstrate it and you think i should buy it unless i can prove it doesn’t. it’s just typical post normal bullshit!
“and have utterly failed to describe the equations used to prevent convection and condensation from foiling the”
There is no foiling of convection needed. It is incorporated in the models.
I showed you a link with a description. There are plenty of papers that describe the role of convection and radiation in great detail.
As ever, it is your ignorance of the theory that gives you free license to dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
Nate set aside for a moment any discussion as to whether co2 is both necessary and sufficient to warm anything in the atmosphere and lets pretend we already know it is.
OK so in this imaginary world of ours co2 is both necessary and sufficient to create warming via a single layer in the atmosphere and we want to analyze whether such an effect in a gaseous atmosphere can develop multiple levels of this warming.
Our assumption tha CO2 is both necessary and sufficient provides a basis of a greenhouse with the lid being the top of the atmosphere. Since technology has established the only way to make multiple layers of insulation that depend upon gaseous or vacuum pockets slowing the loss of heat is by preventing convection at every pocket boundary. Yet science claims this can be done automatically by a lapse rate. Obviously science has been able to artficially create a lapse rate in gaseous environment so the concept is untested. But lets examine science’s guess at this lapse rate partitioning of the atmosphere and ask ourselves OK so at the top of the atmosphere some additional slowing of cooling occurs because of colder higher gases now containing sufficient CO2 will slow that cooling. So what happens when cooling is occurring in these upper reaches of the atmosphere? Well the next layer down warms and when it warms it can mix with the layers above, transport water vapor that condenses partly on the basis of temperature is instead of unloading its latent heat lower in the atmosphere is now going to unload it higher.
If you have ever experimented with this its really interesting what happens. I have taken some Costco bottled water and put in the freezer compartment of my little office fridge. There it remains liquid down to at least 15F. I can take an IR sensor and measure the outside of the bottle’s temperature at 15F and see it is still liquid. If I then give the bottle a sharp tap it instantly freezes and the 15F bottle of water warms to 32F instantaneously. Not only that but the process of freezing is more capable than that and a lot more energy is missing, likely radiated off into the environment. this exothermic reaction in a process one cannot duplicate in laboratory experimental lapse rate environment will now depend entirely on a programmers guesswork
as to the results and disposition of this heat. sure one can have a theory about it and lay that out in a blueprinted process but the question is why hasn’t that ever been done? are they afraid of criticism? obviously so! thats why the approach chosen is to simply call the other side heretics.
“Since technology has established the only way to make multiple layers of insulation that depend upon gaseous or vacuum pockets slowing the loss of heat is by preventing convection at every pocket boundary.”
Sure. That is a way. But not the way the atmosphere does it.
A single 10 km thick layer of gas is a very good insulator.
It is divided into layers to understand radiation and lapse rate.
The atmosphere layer thickness is determined by optics. The thinnest layer that can be optically opaque to IR in the GHG bands.
Now convection can transport heat between the layers, and that is included in the models.
It is very ineffective high in the troposphere, where radiation becomes dominant.
Bottled water experiment is cool…
“one cannot duplicate in laboratory experimental lapse rate environment”
Do you mean that we cannot put the whole atmosphere in a lab and therefore our understanding of it is poor??
Well, we send planes and balloons and satellites and Doppler radar beams up there to measure its behavior.
And we model it and test those models every day with weather prediction.
They are obviously doing very well.
Nate says: A single 10 km thick layer of gas is a very good insulator.
===============================
Not really! It has high resistance only to top down warming.
As demonstrated by R.Woods experiment a greenhouse is warmed by restricting convection. I won’t get into a lot of discussion of the R. Woods experiment because it wasn’t controlled well enough to measure the effect of any effect of restrictions on radiation losses as they are apparently quite small, probably due to the fact the atmosphere already blocks 90% of outgoing radiation.
So if actually what you get for a doubling of the greenhouse effect (full spectrum wise) is only one degree it would not be inconsistent with Woods findings. And as we know that’s a real possibility for a maximum warming from CO2.
At any rate there is an interesting interplay between radiation and convection. Since there are no texts carefully describing this in an advanced R. Woods type study suggests all who have tried have failed to find the magic formula. So why not just imagine a God making this world such a glorious place. A God angered by us disturbing his historic burial mounds. Sacrilegious to the nines. Feel free to provide a link to a study that demonstrates otherwise. I would be forever grateful.
The main point of the R. Wood experiment, like his predecessors experiments, was to demonstrate the box was warmed more by absorbing IR in the top glass plate like in an atm.
Both boxes had restricted convection which is also necessary but the rock salt plate being more transparent in the IR band didn’t absorb IR like the glass plate so its box did not warm like it did with the glass plate.
For a “more advanced” R. Wood type experiment, see Vaughan Pratt’s here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-472369
“A single 10 km thick layer of gas is a very good insulator.
===============================
Not really! It has high resistance only to top down warming.
As demonstrated by R.Woods ..”
Woods experiment is on a box a couple of meters high with glass sheets above.
How does this translate to a 10 km thick layer of air?
Do you think really think a 2 m thick layer of air is just as good an insulator as a 10 km thick layer of air?
Do you think a 1 km thick layer of air is just as good an insulator as a 10 km thick layer?
Hint: A typical lapse rate is 7 degrees C/km.
Ball4 says:
Both boxes had restricted convection which is also necessary but the rock salt plate being more transparent in the IR band didn’t absorb IR like the glass plate so its box did not warm like it did with the glass plate.
For a “more advanced” R. Wood type experiment, see Vaughan Pratt’s here:
=====================================
Pratt found about a one degree difference in the greenhouse floor surface temperature like Woods did.
Of course his earlier experiment was really poorly designed as he didn’t recognize the importance of having covers of “an equal thickness”.
If Pratt’s findings were so important he should have gotten them published but it seems to me ultimately he only substantially confirmed Wood’s findings. it could be a lot better designed with very large boxes to minimize ceiling and wall contamination (a problem Roy ran into in an attempt to duplicate Woods)
Nate says:
‘
Woods experiment is on a box a couple of meters high with glass sheets above.
How does this translate to a 10 km thick layer of air?
Do you think really think a 2 m thick layer of air is just as good an insulator as a 10 km thick layer of air?
Do you think a 1 km thick layer of air is just as good an insulator as a 10 km thick layer?
Hint: A typical lapse rate is 7 degrees C/km.’
===============================
i agree that woods does not refute the colder emissions multi-layer theory. but i also don’t see it refuting the ‘God’s Will and Anger for Messing with his Burial Mounds’ theory either. All Woods shows is that its almost entirely the restriction of convection that creates the greenhouse effect.
Forcing healthy people into quarantine restrictions is bat-shit crazy.
Ken
” Forcing healthy people into quarantine restrictions is bat-shit crazy. ”
What is much more ‘bat-shit crazy’ is that people like you still today can’t manage to understand that a vast majority of us, though looking a a first glance perfectly healthy, nonetheless can be infected and therefore are able to transmit the disease – especially to endangered people, e.g.
– aged persons;
– persons who were attacked by lung or breath cancer and therefore had to rely on extremely intensive radiation therapy (for example: my lady).
Why is it so difficult for people like you to grasp such trivial matter?
WHY?
binny…”people like you still today cant manage to understand that a vast majority of us, though looking a a first glance perfectly healthy, nonetheless can be infected and therefore are able to transmit the disease especially to endangered people, e.g.”
That’s a theory, that people in the vicinity of another can infect another person. There is no proof that a virus can be transmitted by exhaled breath alone. Certainly, we should take precautions with regards to sneezing and coughing where larger droplets of water are expelled.
Renowned epidemiologist, Johan Geiseke, claims social distancing is a theory with no scientific evidence to back it. We should most certainly take care of the elderly who are frail and those people with compromised immune systems. However, the data plainly shows that covid is a danger to only a tiny fraction of 1% of populations. It is crazy to require the rest to stay at home and to ruin economies over such nonsense.
The only alternative is one of those industrial masks with replaceable filters. They have different filters for different applications.
BTW…if you are wearing a mask be sure it is an N95 brand. The rest are absolutely useless at blocking the transmission of a virus, even a surgeon’s mask. The N95 is 90% effective because it’s nearly impossible to block a virus with a diameter of 100 billionth of a metre with anything that allows breathing.
Gordon,
“Renowned epidemiologist, Johan Geiseke, claims social distancing is a theory with no scientific evidence to back it.”
I believe you have that quite wrong. What is your source?
Gordon is not always patently wrong, for example when he recommended Canadian Club a few years ago. In this case he seems to be at odds with his source:
https://tinyurl.com/ybgflpau
Great link – video of Geiseke saying the opposite of what Gordon is claiming.
I wonder if Gordon would change his mind when the evidence is so blatant – from the Doctor’s own mouth.
I could not see any obvious fault in what he said here though:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337736
Barry, I heard Geiske say “social distancing is a theory with no scientific evidence to back it.” in this video minute 3:05 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY&t=207s
He didn’t say that. You just copied and pasted what Gordon said.
He said social distancing has “almost no science” behind it.
But then he contradicts himself here.
https://tinyurl.com/ybgflpau
When he says;
“Sweden decided early that we should only introduce restrictions that had some kind of scientific basis, and as far as known there is only two of them, one is we should wash our hands, and we’ve known that for 176 years, and the other is keep the social distance.”
Why this guy is getting mentioned here? Because he is one of a very few medical professionals who is saying what some people want to hear. And therefore they promote what he says.
Me, I go with what 9 out of 10 doctors tell me. I don’t gamble my health on short odds.
I’m afraid I brought him up and I think he has a point.
Your unremitting skepticism is of course sound, you’re just like a scientist in that respect.
Ken
I would agree with your statement if you could prove which people are infected and which are not. Covid-19 is different than most illnesses. Usually you have symptoms of a disease, high fever, cough etc before you are contagious. This one has proven to be contagious with no visible symptoms. The only way to properly quarantine, with this disease, is with extensive testing. It is quite successful in South Korea. They use extensive contact tracing (phones, credit cards etc) once they have a known Coronavirus positive person and then do massive testing of that group of people. If any are found to test positive they quarantine away from the healthy in places where other infected people are housed. Then monitored by medical staff to send them to Hospitals if the conditions worsen. Their economy remains open, the disease in under control. They have very low number of cases and low number of deaths and they did not have to go to lockdown. I think the leadership of USA should have adopted the South Korean model early in the infection stage and we could have been fine. Now we have thousands of new cases daily (far too many to contact trace or test effectively) and over 80,000 deaths and counting. A lot of those deaths are very bad type. Not just nicely dying in your sleep.
norman…”This one has proven to be contagious with no visible symptoms”.
How the heck would you prove that? Sounds like the type of propaganda spread about HIV, where it can lay dormant for 15 years then activate to destroy an immune system. Sheer sci-fi.
Furthermore, the virus has never been isolated, it is inferred. With inference, how can you test for it, with an inferred test? That’s how crazy this theory has gotten.
They have used such tests with HIV and anyone who tests positive is put on a treatment with toxic poisons. In a lab setting the antivirals have a skull and cross bones representing poison. The MSDS suggest wearing protective equipment while handling it, yet it is freely dispensed to HIV +ve victim without the skull and crossbones or the protective equipment warning. That came from David Rasnick, an authority on antivirals.
That is sick. There is not one shred of proof that the tests for HIV or covid are testing for a virus. The scientist who INFERRED HIV (his words), Luc Montagnier, claims he did not isolate HIV or see it using an electron microscope. So, what are they testing for?
Same with covid, what are they testing for? One of the tests is an antibody test but the immune system does not label antibodies indicating where they came from. An antibody is produced by the immune system when it deals with an infection, not a virus per se.
Gordon Robertson
With you lies are expected. You hate the truth! There is a mountain of evidence that HIV exists. I linked you to several EM images of the HIV virus. How can you be so incredibly dishonest that you continue posting lies and deception. What are you getting for your lies?
You don’t understand DNA and act like a virus expert. You have no clue what you post about but you do know how to lie and distort things. The tests used to identify the viruses you doubt exist, have certain order of nucleotides. A sequence. It is unique to all living things. Each life has its own sequence. You can tell a certain virus among the many based upon the sequence of its RNA which is unique only to it. I don’t know how to explain it any simpler to you. Read a book on genetics and learn about the topic before you pretend you know it. At least your lies would be better than they are now. Currently you just sound very ignorant and uninformed and a dishonest person who ignores all the evidence I have wasted my time presenting to you. Look up electron microscope images of HIV for yourself you phony!
Norman, the point of quarantine restrictions, such as social distancing, staying at home from work etc, is to flatten the curve so that the health care system doesn’t get overwhelmed. The numbers are showing that while the disease is quite infectious, not many of those infected are getting much more than modest symptoms. Most of the cases that wind up needing intense care are people who already have one foot in the gravee. Most of the deaths, 95%, are over 65 with co-morbidity. The numbers of deaths at first glance are appalling until you consider that its not much worse than a bad flu season. Given the numbers there is no justification for continuing the egregious violations of people’s rights. The data we have now suggests that requiring healthy people to live under quarantine restrictions is bat-shit crazy. The lockdown isn’t going to save any lives; its merely going to delay the inevitable … yeah maybe perhaps long enough to get a vaccine … but there might never be a vaccine.
Yes, pretty crazy to let bats shit on your food.
Ken
I am not sure your information comes from a valid source or actual investigation. It could just be the opinion of some blogger without much to back it up.
It seems very difficult to find out how “close” to death people were before they died from Covid-19 but some researchers attempted to determine this.
They come up with a much different picture than you do so the reality is far from clear. Do you have a source or link to a study that determined that “already have one foot in the grave”?
This one says quite the opposite. If you have an actual study please share, I would like to read it.
This is what some experts found.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-most-covid-19-victims-have-died-soon-without-the-virus
Here is why quarantine of healthy people is crazy:
Sooner or later many, perhaps most, otherwise healthy people will get it and recover. About half will not even have symptoms. The risk of them dying from it is negligible.
Those with co-morbidities (obesity, diabetes, old (like me), etc.) need to take every precaution to avoid becoming infected because the consequences can be excruciating including a significant possibility of death. We cannot safely return to normal life style until herd immunity develops either the old fashioned way by getting the disease and recovering or by vaccination. Vaccination is not yet available.
All that social spacing, masks, quarantine, etc. will do is slow the development of herd immunity the old fashioned way.
“All that social spacing, masks, quarantine, etc. will do is slow the development of herd immunity the old fashioned way.”
Yes. But lockdown is to flatten the curve.
Globally we have flatten the curve- now you got the problem of politicans [who have always been idiots- and evil].
If you think we could have done this without flattening the curve, then you can not imagine that WHO has committed war crimes.
I think WHO has committed war crimes.
How about you argue that WHO did nothing wrong, and I will argue WHO committed War crimes?
What do you say?
Sweden is flattening the curve with social distancing and voluntary quarantine. are the Swedes smarter than us?
Sweden has flatten the curve- as has all nations in the world.
There are a lot stupid Swedes as there are a lot stupid “us”\
One advantage the Swedes have, is their media is not trying to destroy their country with fake news.
But a huge dishonor that Sweden owns is that it’s not a big or even small Satan.
Obviously, too many cowards in that country.
bill – who is “us?” I’m going to guess that you mean the USA. Americans tend to think the world revolves around them. I don’t know any other country whose contributors on a forum would fail to say “than (country X)” when mentioning their own situation.
But do correct me if you’re not USA.
The Swedes have a higher death rate than many other countries (12% of cases), so I don’t know if they’re doing that much better. The US has a 6% death rate.
Where I’m from, Australia, it’s a 1.4% death rate. We locked down early and hard. Our curves are definitely flattening. In terms of accumulated cases and deaths, neither Sweden nor the US has flattened the curve.
this is a blog in the usa us is like saying here instead of there.
the curves are definitely flattened here. death rate per case doesn.t seem related to lockdown/no lockdown. more likely most related to finding all cases.
Gba,
The curve has flattened and much more is now known about the disease so the operative word should be ‘was’. It should be considered mandatory for those with fragile health and those who interact with them to keep the extreme measures (assume that everyone and everything is a virus source) but certainly allow all businesses exhibiting recommended health-safety measures to resume business. The 80% or so should be free to the extent that the health system is not overloaded to, as quickly as safety allows, free the rest of us from ‘house arrest’ until herd immunity is established.
Well you managed to miss the point completely, Robertson. That’s what happens when you have amind disposed to self-reinforcement of belief.
I quoted a sentence from a wiki page with multiple references numbered and then stated:
“Look at all the references. Someone/s has done some research.”
As opposed to what you have done. That was my point.
My next sentence in that post reinforces my point:
“Sciencemag has also taken an interest in her, with tons of references.”
Up to you if you want to check those references, but I think it’s pretty clear your mind is made up and there’s no true skepticism in you.
So hwo does your skepticism work? Allow me to quote you.
GR: “They claim she is discredited for one paper. Robert Gallo, who she mentions in her video, is a discredited scientists for…”
Gallo’s integrity is incidental to the veracity of her statements. You are making a circumstantial case by tying in your old conspiracy theories.
GR: “Australian researcher Barry Marshall, had similar claims made against him when…”
Irrelevant. Barry Marshall could be a saint but that has zero bearing on the veracity of Mikovits’ version of events.
GR: “I have tried to listen to this woman objectively looking for loopholes in her arguments.”
A fantasy may have a watertight internal logic and still be fantasy. What have you done to check the veracity of her statements?
GR: “I find her claims to be in the ballpark of science. She talks like a scientist…”
Your point? Does being a scientist make her more credible?
GR: “She gives pretty damning evidence against Fauci and his connection to the Wuhan, China labs. She gave a figure of the money exchanged between US sources and Wuhan.”
This isn’t verification – you’re simply repeating what she said. You’ve seen no “damning evidence.” Seems you are mistaking evidence for hearsay. Exactly what Nate and I have been criticising you for regarding your conspiracy ideation.
GR: “she claimed any animal-based flu shot could contain corona virus…”
And could it? Have you independently verified this? Have you verified that it would be a good/bad thing? Or have you taken her word as gospel?
Immunization is done by giving tiny amounts of the deactivated virus being immunized against. Are you not aware of this?
GR: “She claimed to have worked on the ebola virus…”
Yes she did, and this will be the last entry, because it’s damning.
In her own words:
“Ebola couldn’t infect human cells until we took it into the laboratories and taught [it].”
She claimed she did this work in 1999. Problem is, as Nate pointed out, Ebola had infected and killed people in the 1970s, and there have been a number of outbreaks between then and 1999.
If she’s an immunoligist, this is an extraordinarily incompetent statement. It’s too obviuously wrong to be a lie – a competent immunologist wouldn’t make such a crackpot claim.
This is not a reliable witness. Go and look at the affadavit regarding her stealing stuff from the lab. Go check the links we gave you and delve into the dates and times and the things known, instead of swallowing what she says because it “seems credible” to you.
Barry, you are falling into Troll Robertson’s trap. Stop responding. No matter what you say he will forever keep saying any old rubbish to keep you coming back. That is the essence of trolling.
You’re not wrong.
Actually, he’s not a troll. He believes what he says. But you’re not wrong that it’s a trap. No need to join him in it.
in situations of a lot of uncertainty allwit strong opinions are in the same boat. and generally those unwilling to debate have the weakest cases of all.
SERIOUSLY?! How far off topic can you trolls, “mitigators”, and CJWs get?! Get your own blog. Better still, get a life.
This month’s temperature anomaly is 0.38C. You have something to say about it?
Barry is inviting you to join their circular debate
https://bit.ly/3cnwWwm
And so you see how things get off-topic, WizGeek.
Early days but looking good for another drop in the temperature for May.
First few days hot but a week of very cold weather will make it difficult for a rise without a corresponding week of very hot weather.
Guess it is still too early to know, a bit like Californian voting.
Which global data are you looking at?
Roy,
I’m an amateur at this but I need to know what the warming trend (comparable to the 0.14 degrees per decade) is for the contiguous 48 states.
Can you help me?
Tom
Tom Tucker
” … for the contiguous 48 states. ”
0.17 C / decade
Please have a look at UAH’s regional and latitudinal time series:
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
You see the trends for USA48 / USA49 at the bottom.
J.-P. D. in Germoney
Bindidon,I appreciate very much you help.
Tom Tucker
The Netherlands response to COVID19 was initially similar to Britain’s early herd immunity approach. But then late March it went into lockdown-lite, and it looks like a month later the curve (absolute numbers) is finally flattening.
Other of Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbours who locked down harder and earlier have far fewer deaths per capita and per infection.
The UK is now the second worst country for incidence and deaths, in absolute terms.
For countries whose numbers are somewhat reliable, the correlation between poloicy and effect is fairly clear. The anomalies are either small sample sixe, or the numbers are suspect (eg, Belarus – they do not allow their health service personnel to be interviewed by journalists).
As usual, people who don’t like the stronger policies, or who have beliefs that are troubled by the international response to COVID19, are amplifying anomalies instead of looking at the whole picture.
way too early to tell. it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. and the fat lady is herd immunity.
Two fat ladies, 88. Vaccine is the other way out.
It may be too early, but I’ve been tracking the numbers for many weeks now. I think a 3 week period of change is pretty solid, but that’s lowly intuition. I don’t have the skills to determine if my supposition is statistically valid. I do have other’s expert statistical analysis to help me gauge things, though.
no! one fat lady! vaccine is only one way to achieve herd immunity.
“The poles are where the stars rotate in a circle straight above you.”
Yes Svante. And the Moon has an AXIAL TILT of 6.67 degrees, wrt to the orbital axis.
Not sure how it can have an axial tilt without an axis. But Im sure DREMT can manage it.
For those who don’t know how things are doing right now in the COVID-19 corner, here is an update of a graph I made last week (Brazil added):
https://tinyurl.com/yalpn5a2
This is a chart showing the daily new cases for the suspects showing high case moratlity and death per capita.
All data is uniformly scaled to percentiles, with centred weekly running means (with broader lines).
1. As expected, Russia and Brazil are in front of worst things.
2. The highly praised Sweden doesn’t look that good.
3. As expected, US and UK look exactly like their leaders (many words, few action).
4. All the others show a good downtrend, Spain looking a tiny bit worse.
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/rewn6ny
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
Good work, Bindidon.
I think that the mortality data is firmer than the case data. Infection data hangs largely on testing, and tests don’t capture everyone with the disease. Different countries have different levels of testing. The potential for many more infections also makes the death rate very uncertain, if basing it on a per case basis.
But mortalities are firmer data because deaths are registered much more straightforwardly than testing for infection, and though there is some losseness in some countries about what counts as a COVID mortality, the numbers are not significant enough to skew the results out of usefulness.
If you have the time and inclination, charting the daily mortality rate might prove instructive. I’ve been trying to track policy with fatalitity rates (and infection rates), allowing a 2-week lag on mortality for policy changes. This works best when fatalities are a large sample.
[As I type about statistics, I don’t forget there are human lives behind the numbers]
barry
Thanks for your convenient appreciation.
But… sorry, I have to contradict you concerning cases vs. fatalities.
Last week I made a percentile chart of death toll increments:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gi6kozXjpdJl6dqyud6gfiKMzo4avoaP/view
As you can see, this is not informative at all, all death toll increments are similarly declining over time.
Following the case mortality (i.e.: the death toll per cases ratio, not to be confounded with the deaths per million) also was not very informative:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oe5Kqs0Jb93HkgJ9nUA-cM0i7Hlud96S/view
apart from asking why the US plot looks so strange…
*
Regardless wether or not you consider an increase of cases due to an increase of tests, the case increment remains for me the major instrument.
I could of course try to modulate the case increments with the test increments, OK. But it then moves to compute numbers for the numbers, and, as you wrote pretty good:
[As I type about statistics, I don’t forget there are human lives behind the numbers]
Thanks for that too.
As last detail which appeared when daily downloading ECD-C data: the top seven countries when sorting by case mortality are, though in different order, the same top seven when sorting by deaths per million (up to 13.05.2020):
FR 140734 27074 19 (%)
BE 53981 8843 16
UK 229705 33186 14
IT 222104 31106 14
NL 43211 5562 13
SE 27909 3460 12
ES 228691 27104 12
vs.
BE 53981 8843 774 (dpM)
ES 228691 27104 580
IT 222104 31106 515
UK 229705 33186 499
FR 140734 27074 404
SE 27909 3460 340
NL 43211 5562 323
DpM differ a bit from Worldometers’ stat.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
The ‘daily death per case ratio’ is that of their respective sums since March 1, and not that of their daily increments.
Things I’ve noted without any statistical analysis.
The daily rates have flattened in most places. That is – acceleration has plateaued.
However, cumulative statistics have flattened mainly in those countries with stronger policies, while cumulative statistics have not done that so much in countries with less restrictive policies.
Even if testing was held at a constant level and the ratio of positives increased, that would only give a hint as to the real number of infected. But if tests increase by day, it gets even more difficult to pin down the ratio of actual infected. There is a lot of uncertainty in positive cases in almost every country. Smaller countries may have firmer numbers. My country, Australia, likely does, because the number of tests is very high compared to the number of cases, and we locked down earlyish and hard.
Assessing policy against results is a fascinating statistical excercise. There are potentially so many factors to control for. But it’s very much worth making the attempt, because this will happen again, and one day it will be an even worse pandemic. Death, taxes, and new diseases. These are constants.
#3
You are trying to describe the phenomenon of lunar obliquity. There is no orbital axis, but if you were to draw a line through the moon perpendicular to its orbital plane then that line deviates by the line going through the moon’s north and south “poles” by six degrees or so. That is the lunar obliquity. This has been determined by studying the libration of latitude from Earth, and from knowledge of the deviation of the moons orbital plane from the ecliptic.
You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south “pole” for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did. Then, with knowledge of how the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic plus the observations of the moon’s libration of latitude, if present, you could determine the lunar obliquity…and this is all in a moon that you would consider not to be rotating on its own axis. Therefore axial rotation is not proven by lunar obliquity.
You are right, “those poles wobble”.
Wikipedia:
Lunar precession is the change in orientation of the lunar rotational axis with respect to a reference plane, following the normal rules of precession followed by spinning objects. The orbit of the Moon undergoes two important types of precessional motion: apsidal and nodal. The axis of the Moon also experiences precession.
Yes, those “poles” wobble.
For those that want to think the moon rotates in its own axis, there will always be something for them to cling to. I have noticed you always come back to this one.
That’s right, those wobbles are artifacts of rotation.
You can have the moon as your reference frame instead of the normal inertial one, but then you have to invent new forces to explain those wobbles. An Occams razor failure.
You also need different reference frames for every moon in the universe, another Occam failure.
The moon is indeed rotating…
…about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
So it is no surprise if there are artefacts of rotation.
I use the inertial reference frame.
“but then you have to invent new forces to explain those wobbles”
Well put Svante.
#2
The moon is indeed rotating
about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
So it is no surprise if there are artefacts of rotation.
I use the inertial reference frame.
Lunar axial precession is around its polar rotational axis, not its orbital plane which is at a different angle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession#Axial_precession
Thanks, I know.
Good, the moon rotates on its own axis.
Since the angle of it’s orbit doesn’t fit the bill.
An imaginary line that is not quite perpendicular to the moons orbital plane undergoes minute adjustments over a period of years. Does that prove axial rotation about that imaginary line? Of course not.
It does according to the laws of physics.
We are not discussing how fast it rotates on its axis.
It’s slow, only about once a month.
Agree to disagree.
Cmon Svante, its just an imaginary line.
Although it looks just like an axis of rotation , acts just like an axis of rotation, pierces the Moon at its N and S poles just like an axis of rotation.
But, as you should know, we are not allowed to call it an axis of rotation.
Yeah, must be another one of those semantic points…
Or, something that went over your head…
Re.: The Moon’s rotation vs. its revolution around Earth
I’m (not too much) surprised about the resurgence of this discussion of Moon’s rotation about its axis (or center of gravity).
Here is a hint for possibly interested persons.
*
On 27.01.2019, 20:33 GMT+1, I sent a mail to Mr Aleksandar S. Tomic in Belgrade, Serbia, with contents as follows:
Dear Mr. Tomic,
I’m neither a physicist nor a mathematician.
As you certainly know, the Web is full of corners where Moon’s spin is subject of heavy, unfortunately often brainless, agressive and impolite discussions.
It seem to be a matter of religion.
But… I have no interest in religion, let alone in religious consideration of matters which should stay in science only.
I do not have any idea of wether or not the Moon spins, and have no idea of who in the scientific debate is right concerning this question.
1. I have read one of your papers
1.1 – https://tinyurl.com/ybqdpvxm
in which you explain the impossibility for the Moon to spin.
1.2 – Tesla’s opinion I know as well.
2. At the opposite corner (I cite only recent papers, I read Lagrange’s and Laplace’s work about a theory of the Moon) I see, among many others
2.1 – tinyurl.com/y74kc8th
2.2 – tinyurl.com/yd236z6h
2.3 – tinyurl.com/ycjtfkhg
2.4 – tinyurl.com/ycjq3h5f
2.5 – tinyurl.com/yc78j3on
Many seem to to start from Cassini’s laws.
My question to you is: what exactly do all these people wrong in your opinion ?
*
{ Five original links were tinyURL-ed in order to avoid the comment refused by the blog’s scanner; and their http prefixes were cut off, because no more than 5 links per comment are allowed here. Please copy and paste them in your browser’s address field. }
*
To be honest: I was not surprised by the absence of any answer from Mr Tomic to my humble and polite mail.
**
I won’t contribute to this discussion anymore, especially since my presentation of Sir Isaac Newton’s hint on the Moon’s rotation about its axis
https://tinyurl.com/y47u23ay
was woefully discredited by ignorant contrarians on this blog last year:
– Newton’s original Latin text was denigrated (“no one uses a dead language in discussions”)
and
– the translation in English was as well (“you intentionally misrepresent Newton’s ideas”).
Moreover, the discussion was permanently infected by stupid toy-like comparisons using coins, racehorses and the like; both sides, contrarians to Moon’s rotation as well as proponents, behaved imho equally dumb.
Last not least: it is not very helpful to discuss with people who manifestly do not read articles, but merely scan them for little pieces of text fitting to their narrative, and ignore all the rest.
Never again!
J.-P. D.
Here are the five links whose prefix was cut off above:
2.1 – https://tinyurl.com/y74kc8th
2.2 – https://tinyurl.com/yd236z6h
2.3 – https://tinyurl.com/ycjtfkhg
2.4 – https://tinyurl.com/ycjq3h5f
2.5 – https://tinyurl.com/yc78j3on
Concerning the inability of some commenter to read articles, let me add this succulent detail.
Most of the articles I posted links to, were discredited due to a ‘commentator’s claim [quotes needed here!] that the authors only discussed libration phenomena, and not rotation.
And the best example of all was link Nr 2:
https://tinyurl.com/yd236z6h
Analytical theory of the libration of the Moon
M. Moons, 1982
The ‘commentator’ did not even manage to read the paper’s introduction!
I cite
This theory may be separated into two parts: the orbital motion of the Moon and its rotational motion about its center of mass, the second one taking the first one as data and being strongly dependent on it.
Yeah…
J.-P. D.
“I do not have any idea of wether or not the Moon spins, and have no idea of who in the scientific debate is right concerning this question.”
OK then.
Pseudomod
I was sure you would cherrypick this tiny detail, and ignore all the rest.
It is typical for you that you stay on putting equal Nikola Tesla’s quick shot on the one hand, and e.g. Michèle Moons’ brilliant math engineering work on the other hand.
But… as I wrote above: I won’t contribute to this fruitless discussion anymore.
*
That kind of ‘putting equal’ by the way reminds me how R. G. Wood’s two page note (one more quick shot) has been elevated by numerous pseudoskeptic blogs to a great falsification of Arrhenius’ work.
None of them understood that Wood’s experiment was wrong, why it was, and especially why Wood – a brilliant, worldwide renowned specialist in light and light-near frequencies, especially UV – did the mistake.
So what!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, as you note, DREMT remains long confused about the mechanics of Earth moon’s rotation on its own axis.
As I recall the blog debates many years ago, Wood’s experiment confirmed the earlier experimental work of Arrhenius and Fourier. I’m curious, what did you understand was wrong or mistaken about Wood’s experiment?
Ball4
“… Wood’s experiment confirmed the earlier experimental work of Arrhenius and Fourier. ”
Ooops?!
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
In 1909 Johns Hopkins physicist Prof. R.W.Wood constructed two boxes with respectively a glass and salt window on top, exposed them to sunlight, and observed that their respective interiors warmed by essentially the same amount.
In a six paragraph report on this experiment he concluded that the then 40-year-old explanation of greenhouse warming by IR-trapping was wrong and that the glass in greenhouses served merely to prevent convective loss of heat.
In this note we identify two problems with Wood’s logic.
*
Thus I reply, like a parrot:
” I’m curious, what did you understand was correct in Wood’s experiment? “
Better placement: Bindidon, I’m familiar with Pratt’s work. Here is Pratt:
“4. Result: After adding glass over the salt box the box interiors warmed to within a degree of each other.”
Thus Pratt agrees Wood demonstrated the physics of the atm. GHE “box interiors warmed” adding the IR effects of glass plate simulating the IR effects of an atm.
Pratt then goes on to write:
“5. Wood inferred that planetary atmospheres that trap outgoing longwave radiation can’t have a significant effect on the planet’s temperature.”
Pratt did NOT write Wood inferred NO effect. Wood was not wrong nor mistaken; Wood proved there is an atm. IR warming effect on surface temperature just like his predecessors.
The long running debate has always been putting some detail meaning to “significant”, “any great extent” and “very small part” in Wood’s original wording. Pratt seeks to add clarity to Wood’s words thru Pratt’s more detailed experiments.
And of course, the debate is now moot, since there are direct instrumental measurements of Earth’s natural GHE (and thus GHE variation over time) as Pratt, Wood, Arrhenius, Tyndall, and Fourier all properly, experimentally proved in the lab.
Ball4
I’ll come back here when I have time enough.
J.-P. D.
BTW…Eunice Foote demonstrated the GHE before Tyndall. She often gets omitted from the history books. In fact, it was only recently that her experiments were rediscovered. Though to be fair…Tyndall’s thermopile experiments were more sophisticated and more convincing.
bdgwx, yes, thermopile & thermometer.
The history of the GHE goes back into ancient times. In the early 1800s, the physics of the effect was an active research topic on developing nature of gas kinetics at same time thermodynamics* was evolving trying to understand and make steam engines more eficient.
Tyndall was experimentally active on many fronts, undoubtedly got his ideas from previous work & thus became interested in this field as he admits without full knowledge of past work; he even published a paper on a different topic in the same journal at the same time as Foote. Tyndall nonetheless was “astonished” that his results differed from what he had been taught, so there must have been different views that he didn’t initially trust.
*Cliff Truesdell’s book should be on your reading list: “The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics”, 1822–1854 “accursed by misunderstanding, irrelevance, retreat, and failure” (p.1). His view applicable to this day, on this blog.
I think a lot of the problem is, some people lack the ability to visualize the motions involved.
For example, they might just about be able to visualize the motion of an object that is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis as the “Spinners” see it (so this is a different motion to the one the moon makes), but they can’t mentally picture the object performing this motion whilst it is tilted slightly away from perpendicular to the orbital plane. They then end up believing that the moon’s obliquity or so-called “axial tilt” proves axial rotation.
To help these unfortunate people, all you need is a simple demonstration. Take a coffee cup and move it around in a circle over a flat surface, with the bottom of the cup parallel with the surface, and the handle facing the same fixed point throughout. This is the “Spinner” version of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and no “axial tilt” (since the object is perpendicular to the orbital plane throughout the motion). Now, tilt the cup slightly, so that the base is no longer parallel with the surface. You now have your “axial tilt”. Move the cup around in the same circle again, with the tilt of the cup always facing towards the same fixed point throughout, as well as the handle.
You should now see that “axial tilt” does not prove axial rotation, because you can still have “axial tilt” even in an orbiting object which moves as per the “Spinners” version of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Actually you now see that “axial tilt” does prove axial rotation as your hand forces the cup to rotate on its own axis. Demonstrating DREMT remains long confused about orbital mechanics which is a tough subject, like climate, so DREMT’s long standing confusion in both is easily pointed out by many commenters that have passed the relevant college courses.
Well, that went straight over Ball4’s head.
DREMT said: To help these unfortunate people, all you need is a simple demonstration. Take a coffee cup and move it around in a circle over a flat surface, with the bottom of the cup parallel with the surface, and the handle facing the same fixed point throughout.
Can you define your rotational reference frame from which you make the statement about the handle facing the same fixed point?
Specifically…if using polar coordinates (r, a) where r is radius and a is angle where is your (r,0), (r,90), (r,180), (r,270) points pointing toward and where is your (0,0) point?
I want to determine if you’re using an inertial or non-inertial reference frame.
Inertial. Keep the handle facing towards the same fixed point, like a distant star.
Yes DREMT, keep the handle facing towards the same fixed point by rotating the cup on its own axis once per orbit with your hand.
The moon likewise rotates on its own axis once per orbit of the Earth. I observe these mechanics are difficult for you but not for others.
Now in order to make it like the moon you have to spin the teacup.
Yes, Bob DREMT is spinning the teacup once per orbit with his hand. This is obvious to many, but DREMT has long been confused over these mechanics.
Yes, in this example.
For a simple example which demonstrates how the moon rotated around a central point but not on its own axis, consider a ball on a string. The string is fixed to the ball thus making axial rotation impossible whilst swinging around the central point.
The “yes” was in response to blob, not Ball4.
Here DREMT stumbles into relativity. The ball is not rotating on its own axis relative to the string. The ball IS rotating on its own axis relative to the room.
There is no string connecting moon to earthen ground; the moon is spinning on its own axis relative to the room (the distant stars).
From the inertial reference frame, the ball is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis. Substitute the string for gravity and the analogy is complete.
Relatively speaking, from the inertial reference frame, the ball is orbiting about the central point, and rotating on the ball’s own axis once per orbit as forced by the string. I understand these are difficult mechanics long confusing DREMT.
“Substitute the string for gravity and the analogy is complete.”
Cut the string in your room DREMT, see if gravity substitutes & what really happens experimentally. Then come back and apply theory to explain what you observe.
From the inertial reference frame, the ball is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis. Are you aware that the axis of rotation need not go through the body in question? In this case the axis of rotation is the central point that the ball is swinging around, it does not pass through the ball itself.
ball4,
Exactly. If your room has 4 walls that are red, blue, green, and yellow and if you pick your coordinate system such that r=0 is fixed to the center of the ball and a=0 is always facing the red wall then the ball has angular velocity in that reference frame. That is an inertial reference frame. Therefore the ball is rotating.
DREMT,
Rotation is defined as angular velocity about a reference frame with r=0 through the center of mass and a=0 always points to the same distant fixed point (like a star or the CMB). You cannot make statements about a body’s rotation by using a reference frame (axis) in any other location and/or orientation.
“You cannot make statements about a body’s rotation by using a reference frame (axis) in any other location and/or orientation”.
I’m not. I’m using the inertial reference frame. Let’s try it again:
From the inertial reference frame, the ball is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis. Are you aware that the axis of rotation need not go through the body in question? In this case the axis of rotation is the central point that the ball is swinging around, it does not pass through the ball itself.
DREMT, pay attention to 11:19 comment by bdgwx .
“In this case the axis of rotation is the central point that the ball is swinging around, it does not pass through the ball itself.”
An axis of rotation is not a central point. Obviously orbital mechanics (and climate) thoroughly confuses DREMT, but, with a little more study, DREMT can use bdgwx comments to correct DREMT’s writing.
I expect DREMT will live up to all my expectations by not doing so.
The ball is swinging around the central point. Therefore the axis of rotation is at the central point. Unbelievably simple and easy to understand.
The
axis
need
not
go
through
the
body
in
question.
It doesn’t work either way.
For a reference frame whose radius r=0 is fixed on the center of the orbit and angle a=0 is always facing a distant star or facing the same direction as the CMB then the angle (a) value of the string attachment point on the ball is changing. If the angle is changing for that point then it has angular velocity.
For a reference frame whose radius r=0 is fixed on the center of the orbit and this time angle a=0 is always facing the ball then understand that this is not an inertial reference frame because you are allowing it to rotate.
So your choices for the reference frame you desire are 1) the ball has angular velocity or 2) the reference frame is not inertial.
Nevermind that you still don’t get to redefine rotation by choosing an nonstandard axis or reference frame position (r=0).
No matter how slice or dice or rationalize the problem the ball is rotating in that scenario just as the Moon is rotating.
DREMPTY,
For a simple example which demonstrates how the moon rotated around a central point but not on its own axis, consider a ball on a string. The string is fixed to the ball thus making axial rotation impossible whilst swinging around the central point.
Now take the ball on the string and make it orbit a central point while keeping one face of the ball always facing the central point, and the other end of the string tied to something, do as many orbits as you can, then release the ball…..
and watch it spin
which means you were spinning it as you made it orbit with the same face pointing to the central point.
Man, a first grader would have gotten it by now.
Yes, bdgwx, the ball has angular velocity about the central point, and not about its own axis. Same answer to blob. Once you release the ball it rotates on its own axis. That is just conservation of angular momentum.
So now DREMT imagines the ball does “not rotate about its own axis” then upon release “the ball rotates on its own axis” and this somehow “is just conservation of angular momentum”. Zero to something is not conservation DREMT in any ref. frame; this just shows your continued confusion in this field.
You really should cut the string experimentally, or go to youtube find someone that has. Do a little experimentation not totally imagine physics.
It is not zero to something, it is angular momentum about the central point converted to angular momentum about the axis of the ball.
…plus linear momentum.
DREMT said: Yes, bdgwx, the ball has angular velocity about the central point, and not about its own axis.
Then you need to show that W = 0 when using an inertial reference frame through its own axis.
Picking a reference frame through the center of orbit and showing that W > 0 is not equivalent to W = 0 for an inertial reference through its own axis.
Remember…rotation is defined by the angular velocity relative to the inertial reference frame with radius r=0 fixed on an axis through the center of mass and angle a=0 fixed onto a distant point.
bdgwx…do you accept that the axis of rotation need not pass through the body in question?
DREMT 1:03pm, your imagination remains confused, do the cut the string experiment or find a video of it to learn bdgwx comment is physical truth.
Ideally after the cut, ball will not be rotating on its own axis parallel to original orbital axis as you write; afterwards ball has all linear momentum. In practice, that is difficult to achieve exactly.
OK, Ball4.
Thanks.
DREMT said: bdgwxdo you accept that the axis of rotation need not pass through the body in question?
Absolutely. You can put your reference frame anywhere you want it. But if you don’t put r=0 through the center of mass of the body with a=0 locked onto a distant object then you are not measuring spin angular velocity.
By putting r=0 through the center of mass of the body with a=0 locked onto a distant object you are measuring spin angular velocity.
By putting r=0 through the center of a circle etched by the body’s translational motion with a=0 locked onto a distant object you are measuring orbital angular velocity.
In the case of the Moon the spin angular velocity S and orbital angular velocity O are the same. But S=O does not imply that S=zero. What S=O does imply is a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. This is a special case arrangement in which an observer on the orbital axis only ever sees one face of the orbiting body. In increase or decrease in either S or O such that S!=O results in the observer seeing all faces of the orbiting body. The exact difference between S and O determine how long the observer has to wait to see all faces.
“Absolutely”
Good.
“You can put your reference frame anywhere you want it.”
It’s not the reference frame, it’s the axis of rotation. The axis of rotation of the ball on a string is in the center of the orbit. The reference frame is the inertial reference frame, regardless.
It’s incredibly simple. As I simplify, you obfuscate. That much is clear.
Since the axis of rotation is the central point, the ball is not rotating on its own axis. Not from the non-inertial reference frame, and not from the inertial reference frame. If the ball were rotating about the central point and on its own axis, the ball would have to be wrapping around the string.
However comma,
“Yes, bdgwx, the ball has angular velocity about the central point, and not about its own axis. Same answer to blob. Once you release the ball it rotates on its own axis. That is just conservation of angular momentum.”
In this example, there is no angular momentum to conserve because you are providing the force that causes the ball to both orbit and turn to keep the same face to the center.
Good Job, again you provide evidence that you do not understand another subject.
And just to confuse you some more, there are kinds of angular momentum, one due to spin and one due to orbiting.
I know, blob, that’s why I said:
“It is not zero to something, it is angular momentum about the central point [orbital angular momentum] converted to angular momentum about the axis of the ball [spin angular momentum].”
Except the ball never has any angular momentum because you are providing the force to turn the ball, some of that force gets stored in the string, causing the ball to spin.
Of either kind.
blob confuses torque with angular momentum…
bob, DREMT doesn’t understand his tea cup and ball’s angular momentum results from the hand torque he imagines being applied. Easy to see how DREMT makes that mistake, since he’s so confused about orbital mechanics.
blob doesn’t think there is any angular momentum, Ball4.
Maybe this will help him:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torque_animation.gif#mw-jump-to-license
bob is correct DREMT, in context, after the string is cut. Yes, that animation will help you see the ball or tea cup rotating due the torque your hand applied (by the rotating blue and green arrows on top) to ball rotating on its own axis as well as orbiting around the center axis. The moon is freely rotating on its own axis thru its cg similarly once per moon orbit of Earth, study that animation.
Do your own or find an experiment too.
“bob is correct DREMT, in context, after the string is cut.”
Except that he said the ball “never” had angular momentum, so that includes before the string is cut. So no, blob is not correct, Ball4.
DREMT, you are so confused you can’t understand what bob means in context, after the string is cut your hand stops applying torque so the ball never has angular momentum….after the applied torque stops.
I see DREMT has had time now & is, as I expected, avoiding posting up results of his or any proper “cut the string” experiments because any proper ones will show results counter to DREMT’s long held & obviously incorrect orbital mechanics statements.
Your manipulations of what others have plainly stated are always amusing, Ball4. We have now gone so far from the point of my original 8:46am comment I really do not see the point in continuing this conversation.
Ball4 says:
“DREMT 1:03pm, your imagination remains confused, do the cut the string experiment or find a video of it to learn bdgwx comment is physical truth.”
Delivered with a nice smile from Tim Peake:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Thanks Svante, if you had been paying attention you would note that supports what I said, and refutes Ball4, who argued the ball would not rotate on being cut.
Note the audio: “air resistance”. DREMT, the moon has NO “air resistance” in its rotation on its own axis. This video again shows DREMT’s confusion on the subject of orbital mechanics.
DREMT argued that the whiffle spin spin would increase after release to conserve the original angular momentum given the whiffle ball’s reduced radius for which, if true physics, the ball ought to spin rapidly after release. It doesn’t. This whiffle ball is spinning more & less than once per orbit before the string is released due “air resistance” inherent in whiffle balls. Whiffle ball maintains the initial excess/lack of once per orbit rotation on its own axis after release, no rapid spin as DREMT predicted in his faulty conservation of angular momentum comment.
Comical reading DREMT twist in the wind like a whiffle ball. Svante or DREMT should find a “release the string” video without a whiffle balls rotation on its own axis forced majorly by its “air resistance”.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
Svante said: Delivered with a nice smile from Tim Peake:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Excellent. I was trying to find a video just like this yesterday.
Because the ball has angular momentum/velocity about the axis through its center of mass it continued to rotate when released.
I also did the experiment this morning. I got a shovel and held it by the handle end while I rotated my body to produce an orbiting motion. I then released suddenly. The shovel continued to rotate while falling to the ground with the handle pointing away from me when it landed decisively demonstrating that it continued to rotate about it’s center of mass. And yes, I was careful to not give it any rotational torque when I released it.
”demonstrating that it continued to rotate about it’s center of mass.”
A held shovel is not a sphere orbiting a central axis on a string.
The amount of shovel rotation after release is a measure of the carefully minimized but not nil amount of misalignment torque about shovel cg axis at release when it needs to be much nearer zero.
bdgwx, thanks though for the actual experiment. You do need to improve your experimental technique. I hope you ended up not too dizzy. There has to be a video of this simple physics on line with not a whiffle ball but heavy solid ball on string orbiting a central axis with damped out misalignments & then the string is cut. Reward to first one finds one.
Or if that astronaut can do the experiment outside the ISS in his spacesuit since that would be cool even with a whiffle ball.
“Because the ball has angular momentum/velocity about the axis through its center of mass it continued to rotate when released.”
Because the ball has angular momentum/velocity about the axis through the center of the orbit it continued to rotate when released.
bdgwx says:
“Excellent. I was trying to find a video just like this yesterday.”
Anyone with a feel for physics could see that it would work in reverse too. DREMT however could not.
We had hammer throws before but they were not that clear, at least not to Gordon. A flick of the wrist he reckoned.
Good point ball4. The shovel handle is long and rigid so it does sort of alter the experiment and provides a point where even a slight flick of the wrist could impart torque at the moment of release. I want to use something heavy with a low profile so that wind resistance was minimized. I’ll see if I can work a better setup.
I must confess I did get a bit dizzy 🙂
bdgwx, hopefully before you literally knock yourself out, I’ll help with a video I found on line. Note the experimenter allows residual motion damp out before cutting the string.
His act of cutting the string does impart undesrired noisy torques on the ball. The slow-motion video shows the ball’s circumferential stripe remaining substantially in one plane for no substantial rotation on its own axis with the connection piece mostly pointing left in substantially same direction until floor contact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxrM5tv_RNI
NB: The circumferential stripe also shows the ball, prior to cut, rotating once on its own axis per orbit keeping the attachment fitting pointed at the axis of the orbit.
That is just like Earth’s moon rotating once on its own axis per orbit keeping one hemisphere pointing at Earth. This experimental evidence is contrary to non-experimentalist DREMT’s long held incorrect & imaginary physics comments on orbital mechanics.
Fascinating to see their shared delusion in action.
That ball exhibits a gyro effect.
Another artifact of rotation.
At what point?
At 1:42 (use slow motion).
So…after the string is cut?
Yes, that’s when it becomes apparent.
At first the black band is vertical.
At 1:42 it is horizontal.
The knife creates a force along the tangent.
The ball (string = navel) goes belly up,
just like your theories usually do.
So it must have been rotating around the axis of the string.
Tim Folkerts or MikeR might want to confirm that.
So what part of that makes you believe the ball is rotating on its own axis before the string is cut, which is of course the point being contended?
“When a force applied to a gyroscope tends to change the direction of the axis of rotation, the axis will move in a direction at right angles to the direction in which the force is applied.”
So it wouldn’t go belly up if it wasn’t rotating before the force (knife) was applied.
But it is rotating before the cut. Just not on its own axis.
So the moon rotates, great.
Cut the string and it immediately starts rotating on its own axis. Independently of the orbit, hmm.
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Yes, keep on thinkin
its quite simply a conversion from rotating around the hand spinning the ball on the end string to spinning on its axis as it travels in a straight line at its original orbit speed. the axis spinning is generated from the different speeds of the sides of the ball following orbits of different radii.
simple physics
Agreed.
“the axis spinning is generated from the different speeds of the sides of the ball following orbits of different radii.”
No, Bill, it’s a whiffle ball moving in air. The air exerts differential forces along with the act of uncontrollably torqueing the ball on release. Even a knuckle ball will spin.
When a more controlled experiment is run, with solid ball released, there will be nil ball spin after the string is cut as there are no further meaningful torques on it. I found video demonstrating that, I expect there are others.
This blog has been turned into a physics blog by the sophistry of both DREMT and Gordon neither of which can understand the complexities of climate so they digress.
throwing a baseball whether its a knuckle, curve, or fast ball is going to impart a spin.
but a string attached dea center is as close to a tidal lock as you may be able to get. so cutting the string leaves all the motions in place. the spin on axis takes on the orbital rate of turn. lengthening or shortening of the string would change the rotation like an iceskater pulling her arms accelerates her rotation rate speeding up the smaller radius parts of her body while slowing the speed of her hands. this is fudamental physics.
a planet spinning on its axis at the same rate but in the opposite direction of the orbit would maintain the constant view of the stars and would continue to do so when released from its orbit and would then be viewed as not spinning.
the moon spins on its axis is just wrong. its instead spinning around a barycenter.
“so cutting the string leaves all the motions in place”
No. The force through the string maintaining the ball rotating on its own axis and pointing at the center of its orbit is not in place anymore after cut.
The ball will cease reacting to that force after the string is cut and thus no longer rotate on its own axis except for almost nil inertia offset by air friction since it is no longer forced to do so. You can observe this effect in the hard ball video link though the noise of the knife edge torque applied is undesirable. The fitting formerly connected to the string maintains its orientation at cut while on the fly.
Ball4 says:
May 16, 2020 at 4:14 PM
“so cutting the string leaves all the motions in place”
No. The force through the string maintaining the ball rotating on its own axis and pointing at the center of its orbit is not in place anymore after cut.
The ball will cease reacting to that force after the string is cut and thus no longer rotate on its own axis except for almost nil inertia offset by air friction since it is no longer forced to do so. You can observe this effect in the hard ball video link though the noise of the knife edge torque applied is undesirable. The fitting formerly connected to the string maintains its orientation at cut while on the fly.
==================================
well i acknowledge i am speaking in layman’s terms. by all motions i mean relative speed. as we know an orbit is a balance of forces relative to the speed of an object. so cutting the string releases the force that keeps the object in orbit. i am no expert on the moon but have read that the moon had a spin when captured in orbit and gradually slowed down due to the tidelocking force. the moon has a spin that depending upon perspective is identical to the appearance of the spin around its axis. its a silly argument because its semantical in nature all i am doing is enabling our common ways of speaking where the rotation of can be conceptually more easily separated from spinning on its axis. its not uncommon for particular branches of science to shift those definitions around some for better consistency and terminology in their field. but since this blog is not a science project and is open to the public a more common way of viewing the moon is it doesn’t spin on its own axis and if released from its tidal lock leash would then go off in the distance spinning on its axis
Bill, in the case of the moon, there is no string forcing. The moon rotates relative to the stars and the sun. There is sun rise and sun set at the fixed Apollo landing sites. In my backyard 4″ Celestron telescope at night, I can easily observe the terminator sweeping across the moon surface as the moon rotates on its own axis.
If the gravity were cut off from earth like the string is cut in the video, then moon would not change in its current rotation rate on its own axis but moon would stop orbiting the Earth.
yep just like the kid on the merry go round spinning around not his axis but the axis of the entire merry go round. not spinning on its own axis as he moves nearer and more distant from the sun with each revolution of the merry go round.
only when released from the mgr forces does he stop cycling distance from the sun on the mgr but continues to spin and cycle distance to the sun as he rides earth around on its axis.
I’m glad we agree on what we see in Tim Peake’s experiment.
I say we have:
1) Rotation around its own axis.
2) Orbital revolution.
Cut 2) and only 1) remains.
What is the real physical difference for DREMT, except in words?
Bill already explained it, Svante.
Yes, you have “a silly argument because its semantical in nature”.
Now you are just trolling.
“only 1) remains.”
No as you can observe that forcing is also eliminated with the string cutting, so the string attachment on the ball continues to point in same direction as at string cut when ball is on the fly, to the left in the slo-mo video replay.
It starts off with a small continued rotation on its “polar” axis, then the gyro effect turns the black band horizontal and the attachment point is pointing up after a foot or so of free flying.
Bill,
” the axis spinning is generated from the different speeds of the sides of the ball following orbits of different radii.”
Indeed so.
And that is the definition of rotation around a point. If opposite sides have different speeds relative to its center of mass, then it is, by definition, rotating around its center of mass.
That is true regardless of whether its center of mass is
stationary, traveling in a straight line, or travelling along a curved path.
In this instance, Bill, you shown that is true even as it orbits.
Svante, the rotating arm makes a full circle and more while the ball is off flying.
If your “only 1) remains.” were true, then the attachment point should have rotated 360 and more but the released ball does not do so.
Nate says:
‘And that is the definition of rotation around a point. If opposite sides have different speeds relative to its center of mass, then it is, by definition, rotating around its center of mass.
That is true regardless of whether its center of mass is
stationary, traveling in a straight line, or travelling along a curved path.
In this instance, Bill, you shown that is true even as it orbits.’
=========================================
hmmmmmm, ‘by definition’ huh?
i think you just proved it to be a semantical argument as i stated.
now astronomers have their own definitions, commoners often have another . . . . it would be rather hilarious to see an astronomer try to explain to parents why their child is spinning on his axis on the merry go round and what he should do to stop spinning on his axis.
Nate says:
That is true regardless of whether its center of mass is
stationary, traveling in a straight line, or travelling along a curved path.
=========================================
lol! i missed this one in the reply above
here we create a definition of rotating around a center mass no matter where the center mass is at various degrees of the rotation making everything in the universe rotating around it’s center of mass.
it doesn’t seem to be a useful definition in trying to understand motion. of course i could be wrong so you are invited to provide what is useful about the notion. perhaps more useful is dependent spin and independent spin.
Ball4 says:
“the attachment point should have rotated 360 and more but the released ball does not do so.”
Yes, but it was also rotating around the axis of the string, the knife changed that axis of rotation, and the gyroscopic effect turned the attachment point 90 degrees straight up after a feet or two.
You can see that the black band is horizontal and the connection point is up, can’t you?
It’s in the first frame at this point:
https://tinyurl.com/ybos3pcp
The connection point due the string cut noisy torque does make a circular motion around the leftward vector, but all in the same direction to the left (circling around up and down a bit) & not 360 or more rotation (N,E,W,S) in former plane of arm rotation as it was doing under the influence of the string.
This test was not designed to show the effect we are discussing but it does show most of it.
“it doesn’t seem to be a useful definition in trying to understand motion. ”
Useful = agrees with your prior intuition?
How else can rotation be defined?
Consider a stationary wheel, radius r, rotating CW at angular velocity w. The top and bottom have opposite velocities, v = wr and v =-wr.
The top and bottom velocities differ by 2wr = wD.
Yes? This is what rotation does.
Now let the wheel also be moving sideways (translating) to the right at speed Vcm. cm indicates the velocity of center of mass.
Its top has velocity Vcm + wr and its bottom Vcm -wr.
It doesnt matter how the cm is moving (sideways, up, down), if the top and bottom velocity differ by wD if the wheel is rotating.
The motion of the wheel can be entirely described by the velocity of its cm, aa vector, Vcm, and its rotations w, around the cm.
This comes from basic kinematics, as found in any physics textbook.
Ball4, I agree it’s disturbed and it doesn’t show the effect we are discussing. What does Nate make of it?
I think that makes sense, Svante.
Its too bad the knife cut perturbs it so much, makes it more complicated.
Ive done the swinging the broom around and letting it go, tryin not to torque it. It works.
So (0,0) is fixed on the center of the cup. And (r,90) is always facing a star currently to the east. That is indeed inertial. And if the handle is always facing (r,90) then the cup has no angular velocity. In that case the cup is not rotating. So I take issue with your statement that this is the “spinner version” of that scenario.
If we instead orient our reference frame such that (r,0) is fixed on the direction of motion then you can rightly claim that the cup (or Moon) has no angular velocity relative to that reference frame. But, that reference frame is turning relative to the fixed stars or the CMB. That means your reference frame is rotating. Rotating reference frames are not inertial.
When we say the Moon is rotating we mean it has angular velocity in an inertial reference frame.
“In that case the cup is not rotating. So I take issue with your statement that this is the “spinner version” of that scenario.”
“Spinner” refers to a person who believes the moon rotates on its own axis. Now re-read my comment in full with that understood, it will make more sense to you then.
Note that I said “This is the “Spinner” version of “orbital motion without axial rotation””
Without axial rotation.
If you keep the handle pointed on a distant star then an observer in the center of the circular motion (orbit) will see all sides of the cup. This is the non-rotating scenario.
If the “spinner” version is for an observer in the center of the circular motion (orbit) who only sees one face of the cup then the only way for that to happen is if the handle begins pointing away from that distant star. Specifically…the handle must complete one rotation for every orbit. The cup is rotating in this case.
The Moon’s faces do not stay fixed on any particular stars. Therefore the Moon is rotating.
Please read my comment again from beginning to end. You appear to have completely missed the point of the demonstration.
The source of my confusion is that you said the “spinner version” is the scenario where the handle faces a fixed point like a distant star. But that can’t be the “spinner version” because an observer in the center of the orbit sees all faces of the cup in that scenario. Obviously that is a different scenario than the Moon since observers in the center of the orbit only see one face.
“Spinners” are people like you, who believe the moon rotates on its own axis. OK?
I was describing the motion “orbital motion without axial rotation” as you see it. OK?
Obviously the “Non-Spinner” version of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion as per the moon. This is not the motion I was demonstrating. OK?
Looks like you got your panties all in a bunch.
OK, blob.
“I was describing the motion “orbital motion without axial rotation” as you see it. OK?”
You can’t argue with this guy.
He tells you what he thinks you should be thinking, and gets it all wrong and gets thoroughly confused.
#2
OK, blob.
this is such a silly argument. an iceskater is thought to spin on her axis. but a child on a merry go round hanging on for dear life isn’t. at skaters are smart enough to give all their spin variations different names.
“but a child on a merry go round hanging on for dear life isn’t”
It’s beyond silly, they have actually argued before that a circle drawn in chalk at the edge of a merry go round is rotating on its own axis!
and to take that a step further if you put the spinning iceskater on the merry-go-round who was spinning at the same rpm as the merry-go-round in the opposite direction she would meet these guys definition of not spinning. the fact is the iceskater is both spinning on her own axis and on the axis/hub of the merry-go-round.
Exactly.
“if you put the spinning iceskater on the merry-go-round”
Bill, how is the skater put on the merry-go-round?
Lets say we place her on a frictionless stool on the merry-go-round. IOW the stool can apply no torque on the skater.
1. Place non-rotating skater on stool on rotating merry-go-round. What happens? Does she end up with rotation?
2. Place skater with same spin-rate and direction on m-g-r. What happens?
nate i would suggest you have at least an inch of ice on the deck of the merrigoround. that way she can get a toe grip with the blade on her skate. then she could lean in slightly toward the axis of merrigoround to fight the centrifugal force put on her by the ride or give her something to get a grip on the ride’s canopy. nothing too complex though would likely require some rehearsal practice
Ah, interesting. Intentionally vague.
Lets say we place her on a frictionless stool on the merry-go-round. IOW the stool can apply no torque on the skater.
1. Place non-rotating skater on stool on rotating merry-go-round. What happens? Does she end up with rotation?because the stool
–My answer: No she doesnt because stool can apply no torque on her. Newtons laws for rotation says no torque = no change in angular velocity.
2. Place skater with same spin-rate and direction on m-g-r. What happens?
–She continues with that rotation rate which matches the m-g-r. This matches the behavior of a tidally-locked Moon in a circular orbit.
Pseudomod
” Moreover, the discussion was permanently infected by stupid toy-like comparisons using coins, racehorses and the like; both sides, contrarians to Moon’s rotation as well as proponents, behaved imho equally dumb. ”
Apologies, I forgot the unstoppable, masterful ‘coffee cup’ experiment.
Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace?
Kopal, Eckhardt, Chapront, Calame, Migus, Moons, Rambaux, Williams?
They had it all wrong.
You just need to ask Pseudomod or his friends-in-denial Robertson and Huffman why they were wrong, and how to do it right…
Life can be so simple nowadays. You just need to claim that Science is an unnecessary, disturbing ‘appeal for authority’, and throw it away.
Basta ya!
J.-P. D.
This is just for people unable to visualize a particular motion, Bindidon, in relation to a specific point about lunar obliquity. Calm down.
Bindidon, I’m familiar with Pratt’s work. Here is Pratt:
“4. Result: After adding glass over the salt box the box interiors warmed to within a degree of each other.”
Thus Pratt agrees Wood demonstrated the physics of the atm. GHE “box interiors warmed” adding the IR effects of glass plate simulating the IR effects of an atm.
Hi Bin et al..
Purely for amusement purpose only ( I amuse easily) I have dropped in to this thread. After all these years, the usual suspect is at it again, claiming the moon has zero rotation about any axis (zero plus or minus zero, I assume) . There have been numerous objections to this hypothesis. I raised one, early on about selenographic co-ordinates, which were developed many, many moons ago in 1750 by Johan Meyer. These selenographic coordinates are referenced to the moons rotational axis (see https://the-moon.us/wiki/Selenographic_Coordinates).
These coordinates would have been used by the Apollo 11 and subsequent missions in their planning. The landing site for Apollo 11 was – Selenographic co-ordinates: 0.67409N, 23.47298E in the Sea of Tranquillity (Davis et al).
I am glad the DREMT had no involvement in the planning. If DREMT’s advice was followed, the most likely result would have been this – https://images.app.goo.gl/9XiM1m7WAdynpnmZ9 .
Not at all, I would have happily used the coordinates.
Even though the coordinates are based on the axis of rotation of the moon?
Wow! Are you now walking back your claims about the moon not rotating on its axis? You make Trump sound consistent and rational and that is quite an achievement.
No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
They also think the moon has a North Pole, a South Pole and an equator, all based on the moon’s “axis of rotation”. Doesn’t mean there is an axis of rotation. Just means they have decided where these things are based on their (erroneous) understanding that the moon rotates on its own axis. After all, if you think the moon rotates on its own axis, you ought to be able to figure out where that pseudo-axis is, based on the way the moon is aligned relative to its orbital plane, throughout its orbit.
This has been posted before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
You didn’t get it then, you won’t get it now.
I got it then, I get it now, in fact I have posted one long comment about it three times (which you have not responded to) and I just wrote another long comment about it further upthread, at 8:46am.
Thanks Bob,
Either we, along with the entire physics and astronomical community, are deluded or DREMT is. Take your pick.
“the entire physics and astronomical community”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-472284
DREMT, your marvelous 8:46 am contribution begs the question. What defines the axis?
Is it an arbritary line that is defined on an some unknown basis rather than the axis of rotation? The graphic Bob linked to indicates that it is definitely not the plane of the moon’s orbit around the earth (or the earths orbit around the sun).
So DREMT, you sure know how to tie yourself up in knots. If you want to disentangle yourself from your own mess then you need to explain how you define the axis.
I await with bated breath.
Shame you didnt read and understand the 8:46am comment.
This any help?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-472159
If not, I am not going to repeat myself any further.
When The going gets tough, DREMT invariably heads for the closest exit, usually with a link to one of his previous posts as a smoke screen.
With regard to his latest attempt –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-472159
DREMT explains obliquity and the accompanying wobbles in the context of a non-rotating moon. However he does not even attempt to answer the fundamental question. What is the basis for the axis, that he refers to, that is oblique to the orbital plane?
For once DREMT show the courage of your convictions and answer directly (i.e without diversionary linking or copying and paste your previous efforts). You never know. You might even gain a modicum of respect from myself and your many detractors.
Give it a go. It shouldn’t take too long to explain, even to a dumb physicist like myself, your unique concept of how the axis of the moon is defined.
“DREMT explains obliquity and the accompanying wobbles in the context of a non-rotating moon”
A non-rotating moon as the “Spinners” would understand a non-rotating moon. Thus demonstrating that there is no link between obliquity and axial rotation.
“What is the basis for the axis, that he refers to, that is oblique to the orbital plane?”
Over the course of the lunar month, you would literally see the moon rotating on its own axis, from Earth. Or “appearing to rotate on its own axis”, as the “Spinners” would have it. So the answer to your question would be, “direct observation”.
Ok DREMT I see where you are confused. As you have it, as we say around here, “arse about”.
From the perspective of the earth the moon does not appear to be rotating as we always see the same face.
From the perspective of space, the sidereal rotation period is 27.32158 days. See https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/lunar_sid_syn.html .
I hop[e this clears up your misunderstanding.
From the inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. See the ball on a string discussions further upthread.
Eliminating DREMT’s long held orbital mechanics confusion, from the inertial reference frame (distant stars), the moon is orbiting about the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating once per orbit on its own axis keeping same hemisphere always pointed toward earth. See the ball on a string discussion further upthread and the whiffle ball video demo.
DREMPTY,
You need to use the correct terms, the moon is not rotating around the earth moon barycenter, it is revolving around that barycenter.
And by the way Tomic is an engineer, not a member of the physics and astronomy community, and if you read and understood his paper, you would realize he didn’t even address the problem of whether or not the moon rotates. Also the paper is so chock full of typos, mispellings and grammatical mistakes to make it almost unreadable, it’s like it wasn’t even proofread.
OK, blob.
So we are still looking for you to cite an astronomer that says the moon is not rotating.
Your Tomic cite is about whether the moon revolves around the Earth or the Sun, and does not discuss the moon’s rotation at all.
http://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
2nd paragraph too of page 142 of Bindidons cite.
So where does Tomic say the moon is not rotating in that particular cite?
I just gave you the page and paragraph number. I know he is quoting somebody else, but it is still in his paper.
So here is the quote in question
“This is why the moon has neither a magnetic moment nor a rotation of it’s own”
Two points
One you seem to think he is quoting someone else, but if he is, he is quoting Tesla, because that is in the footnote, and I have already explained why Tesla doesn’t know what he is talking about since he seems unaware of the two different axes in question.
And second, I can admit that the moon does not have a rotation of it’s own, since it is tidally locked to the earth and that is what determines it’s rate of rotation.
Because it is certainly rotating.
mike….”From the perspective of space, the sidereal rotation period is 27.32158 days”
We have been through all that about different reference frames and in any reference frame the Moon does not turn about its axis.
Imagine the Earth’s axis as a N-S shaft with a perpendicular rod on an articulated bearing that can turn around the N-S shaft and stick out to the Moon and right through it. The Earth has a slot in it to allow the rod to turn independently of the Earth’s rotation.
So, the Moon can revolve around the Earth on this rod but independently of the Earth’s rotation. The same face is now forced to face the Earth while completing an orbit and from your sidereal perspective it will still SEEM to turn on its axis. It cannot turn on its own axis because it is being held facing the Earth by the rod.
Now you can remove the rod because gravity acts in the same manner. It keep one face of the Moon always facing the Earth while allowing the Moon to orbit the Earth.
Here’s how it works. The Moon has only linear momentum and it wants to move only in a straight line. The force of gravity on the near face keeps nudging the Moon into a resultant path which is its orbit. There is no need for the Moon to rotate on its axis because it is held in an orbit by gravity.
You can prove this for yourself with two coins. Sit them on a table side by side, the Earth on the left and the Moon on the right. Mark them both at 3 o’clock for the LH coin and 9 o’clock for the RH coin. Draw a line through the RH (Moon) coin from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock. That line must always point to the centre of the LH coin.
You see immediately that the stipulation just stated forces each point on that line to move in parallel circles around the centre of the LH coin. If each point on the line is move in parallel circles they can never rotate around an axis as required for rotation about an axis.
Try to move the Moon coin around the Earth coin by rotating it as you go. You can’t. The minute you start rotating it, the line through it no longer points at the centre of the LH coin. You have to slide it around the LH coin, gradually turning it so the line always points to the centre of the LH coin.
That motion is called curvilinear motion, not rotation. That’s because every point along the line, including the Moon’s axis is moving in parallel circles around the centre of the LH coin. If the Moon’s axis is moving parallel to the part of the line contacting the LH coin’s perimeter, the contact point can NEVER rotate around the axis.
QED
Why did I just get a flashback to grade 11 geometry? SAS, ASA.
He is quoting someone else, and not Tesla. Go to the bottom of the preceding page and you will see the quote comes from Savic & Kasanin. So, another source claiming the moon does not rotate on its own axis…
I agree with Bob above that is important to distinguish between the terms revolution and rotation in an astronomical context.
Rotation is normally reserved for a single body such as a planet, moon or asteroid and describes motion of the single body around a linear axis that passes through the body. The term revolution describes the motion and interaction of more than one body i.e. the revolution of a planet around the sun (actually barycentre) or the revolution of moon around a planet (again the barycentre).
I see Gordon above has decided to invoke explanations involving shafts and bearings to support the zero lunar spin hypothesis. Unless I have been severely misinformed, there do not appear to be any physical connection between the earth and the moon that can justify this explanation.
A single object that isolated physically or gravitationally from any other external body, will continue to rotate around its axis at a constant rate. This rate of rotation has an infinite range of possibilities (in either clockwise or anticlockwise directions) including zero. The possibility of it being exactly zero (plus or minus zero) is infinitesimally small.
In contrast the moon is tidally locked to the earth so that one side of the moon always faces the earth. There is just one viable solution that satisfies this requirement without requiring a rigid physical connection between the earth and the moon. This is the convential explanation i.e. the moon rotates at exactly the same rate as it revolves around the earth. This explanation seems to satisfy the vast majority of astronomers, and physicists .
The only people who appear to be dissatisfied with this explanation is a small residue of two or three contrarians that have taken up residence here and the two, maybe three, devotees of Nikolai Tesla that belong to the Serbian school of paranormal metaphysics .
As a follow up to the above.
The moon’s rotational spin being tidally locked to its period of revolution is a characteristic of nearly all the other moons in the solar system.
If we employ the same logic of DREMT and Robbo, then each of these tidally linked moons must also not be rotating.
However there is an example where the actual rotation rate of a tidally locked moon has been measured directly.
The Cassini mission to Saturn measured the rotation of the moon Titan. Interestingly they measured small variations in the rotational period which they attributed to the presence of ocean layers beneath the surface of Titan . The average rotational rate was not found to be zero which, of course, was totally unsurprising (except possibly for DREMT and Gordon).
Information regarding these measurements can be found here – https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13516-titans-changing-spin-hints-at-hidden-ocean/.
Finally it is apt to remember the words of a wise Italian regarding an astronomical controversy – “Eppur si ruotare”.
Tidal locking only makes more sense from the “Non-Spinner” perspective.
DREAMPTY,
Except the quote does’t include the word “axis” so you are putting words into peoples mouths and claiming they support your position.
BUSTED
It is clear from context what is meant. In the next paragraph, Tomic references Tesla. If you read from the bottom of page 141 through the first few paragraphs of 142 it is perfectly clear that Tomic supports the position that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Regardless of any ambiguous wording on the part of Savic & Kasanin. Hence why Bindidon wrote to Tomic in the first place.
“Tomic references Tesla.”
So if I ask experts on this topic, and 99.99% of them disagree with me, but I find one or two who agree with me, then that proves what?
That I’m right?
#2
It is clear from context what is meant. In the next paragraph, Tomic references Tesla. If you read from the bottom of page 141 through the first few paragraphs of 142 it is perfectly clear that Tomic supports the position that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Regardless of any ambiguous wording on the part of Savic & Kasanin. Hence why Bindidon wrote to Tomic in the first place.
Bindidon says: ‘Life can be so simple nowadays. You just need to claim that Science is an unnecessary, disturbing appeal for authority, and throw it away.’
===================================
life isn’t so simple.
when one seeks advice it should be from a trusted independent source.
science often works tremendously well as an advisor when independent.
independence is a real concept that allows advice to be given without bias. growth, funding or other means of amassing power of either an individual, special interest group, or employer or major client of an individual is the definition of non-independence.
your mother is likely independent and there are means of obtaining trust via legally binding contract or explicit legislation that orders it under strict liability or substantial punishment.
your medical doctor is an example. plus having a doctors future determined directly via satisfied patients gives even greater assurance and explains why so many people want to retain the same relationship with their current doctor.
all this is dependent upon wise choice. one should be wary of those working for institutions that have other concerns than your concerns at heart.
those promoting institutions understand this completely and thus will tell you every denier professional who disagrees is an oil company lackey. thats the first sign that should be putting you on notice to hold on tight to your wallet.
plenty of people have learned the hard way that one needs to be very alert when they hear: ‘Hi! I am from the government and I am here to help you when they didn’t make a call for help.
The axial tilt argument is a refutation of the Tesla argument that the moon rotates but not on it’s own axis, because the axis the moon orbits around the earth (which includes the barycenter, as the axis of orbit goes through this point) and the axis the moon rotates around are not the same and not parallel.
Tesla did not seem to be aware of this point and although he may have been a good designer and builder of electrical equipment, he sure did believe in a lot of junk science, just review his wiki page for evidence of that.
As for your teacup argument, give us an example of an object that exhibits orbital motion without axial rotation.
As far as I know, there are no examples to be found.
As far as I know there are no real-world examples either. Nothing natural orbits that way as far as we know. Which doesn’t affect the point I’ve made (which refutes your so-called refutation of Tesla, along with this comment: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-472159)
“As for your teacup argument, give us an example of an object that exhibits orbital motion without axial rotation.”
Hubble telescope with a long exposure time (multiple orbits) when observing a distant star or galaxy. Hubble then shows all its faces to earth.
Yes, true. Can’t think of any natural object though.
“Now, tilt the cup slightly, so that the base is no longer parallel with the surface. You now have your ‘axial tilt’. Move the cup around in the same circle again, with the tilt of the cup always facing towards the same fixed point throughout, as well as the handle.”
The handle must rotate around the cups AXIS, which must always point to the same star or spot on the ceiling.
So if the handle is initially tilted upward from the cup, then after a half orbit, the handle is now tilted downward from the cup.
You want the Moon to NOT HAVE its own axis of rotation.
With no axis of rotation, it can have no AXIAL TILT.
But it clearly does.
#2
Yes, true. Can’t think of any natural object though.
“Pseudomod”
That is a very clever play on words and netspeak. Bravo.
barry
I’m too lazy to move upthread to our little COVID conversation, and ask you here: did you visit Clive Best’s recent articles on this topic?
http://clivebest.com/blog/
All interesting stuff.
Last year, he did also a masterful evaluation of GHCN data using an icosahedron in order to get binning as near as possible to Earth’s spherical surface:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9193
But I’m sure you know of that, I saw your nickname there within another thread.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
That was an interesting read. Thank you.
Glad to help a bit.
I can’t remember the last time I visited Clive Best’s website, but he is good value. The COVID posts were interesting, but I’m not sure I agree with him that Sweden’s strategy is best form. Their death rate, per capita and per case, is greater than their neighbours. Perhaps time will yield a more positiver answer, but for the present Sweden’s policies have been more fatal than many other similar countries. Sadly, nearly half the number of Swedish fatalitites are from aged care facilities. Sweden disastrously failed their most vulnerable population.
barry
“… but I’m not sure I agree with him that Sweden’s strategy is best form. Their death rate, per capita and per case, is greater than their neighbours. ”
I agree. Clive Best is an excellent engineer, but he lives in UK, and some comparisons with UK, one of the worst countries in puncto COVID-19 fighting, might look a bit naive.
Tamino has edited a good article concerning… Sweden versus Switzerland:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/covid-19-a-tale-of-two-countries/
I’m sure you will enjoy.
But… here too, there might be a bit of naivity. Of course, Tamino is right: lockdown worked in Italy, Spain, France, Germany etc.
The challenge however will be in handling the lockdown’s shutdown such that a second wave can be avoided.
*
Btw: I still have problems with this ‘per million’ based comparison, as is does not take the population’s density into account.
Imagine you would compare Belgium with Australia…
And I’m a bit allergic against logarithmic scaling, that is due to… WUWT.
Here is therefore my percentile-based variant:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wbBmtDrwzT3rN2zFAmlE9HaUPIRvW1rl/view
J.-P. D.
Tamino is good but how can he compare confirmed cases when even deaths are counted so differently between different countries? Sweden has been very bad at testing, Switzerland has done twice as much. Now testing is ramping up so more cases are being found, but the death toll is going down.
Lock down works of course. Does it work in the long run?
Maybe, let’s see when the science is done.
svante…”Tamino is good…”
Yeah….good for nothing.
Good at statistics.
Robertson
You are good for nothing… else than to show off, to boast, to discredit, denigrate, insult and lie.
Big feet, brain daily getting smaller and smaller. In comparison to people like Grant Foster, you are even less than the emptiness.
But it’s good to have you here on board, Robertson.
You help many of us in constantly keeping in mind what we never would want to become.
J.-P. D.
binny…”But it’s good to have you here on board, Robertson.”
Thanks there, Binny. I knew you’d come around eventually.
I said Tamino was good at statistics, but it wasn’t so good that he banned Norman (who is good at physics).
Yes, there are many things to factor, Bindidon. Even for culture, where one population may be more compliant to government directives than another. Population density, general health of the population, even how people travel.
I’m not a fan of case numbers, whether by the million, daily, cumulative etc; and testing, as you mentioned is a significant control factor. We have numbers for that, too – we’ll probably see a few studies attempting to control for a number of factors and erive some useful information.
I still think mortality is the most solid number to use. Even though countries report a bit differently, there is still much commonality, and the two main differences are confirmed and probable, really – not hard to bin them separately.
barry says:
“I still think mortality is the most solid number to use.”
Yes, looks like attribution compared to excess mortality seems to be getting better:
Britain: 72%
Spain: 78%
Italy: 48%
France: 93%
NYC: 90%
Netherlands: 51%
Belgium: 102%
Sweden: 92%
Austria: 57%
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries
Jetzt fehlt uns nur noch einer in dieser edlen Rotations-Talkrunde: der Mann mit den sehr großen Füßen und dem wunderbar passenden, sehr kleinen Gehirn.
{Google Translator might help. }
J.-P. D.
B,
If anyone was interested in the unknown, of course. Why don’t you just write English?
Noch ein!
Aber nein, Svante!
Das hier war nur der kleine Hund, der an jedem Baum pinkelt.
B,
So you understand German. Good for you! Does it make any difference to the lack of CO2 heating properties? Just more alarmist obfuscation, perhaps?
Pinkelt noch einmal.
” Does it make any difference to the lack of CO2 heating properties? ”
‘Amazed’ is not even able to drive Mike Flynn out of his brain.
I won’t contribute to any search like this one I propose, but: did anybody try to find out wether or not the people who were responsible at NASA for the computation of the Moon Landers’ trajectories had to take Moon’s rotation into account?
It’s not much – at Moon’s equator about 4.7 m/s I think, to be weighted by the cosine of the latitude of the landing area – but it should nevertheless be enough to create problems when ignored.
J.-P. D.
They had to take the moons orbital motion into account. Which includes what you erroneously think of as axial rotation, so…short answer yes, long answer no that does not prove axial rotation.
Pseudomod
” They had to take the moons orbital motion into account. Which includes what you erroneously think of as axial rotation… ”
What a completely redundant reply! What I meant above is what you deny to exist.
And when you write “you erroneously”, you behave quite a bit arrogant.
After all: did YOU ever scientifically contradict all the people I listed the papers of?
Not MY meaning counts here for me, let alone yours.
The best is, Pseudomod, that YOU certainly never will search for the info. Because that could mean for you to have to give up your unscientific nonsense…
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon.
binny…”did anybody try to find out wether or not the people who were responsible at NASA for the computation of the Moon Landers’ trajectories had to take Moon’s rotation into account?”
I did find out that all of the landing sites are on the side of the Moon that always faces us. They talked about the 14 day lunar day and the 14 day lunar night. We can see the Moon only when the Sun is shining on it from behind the Earth and that is during the 14 day lunar day wrt to us in the Northern Hemisphere. It would be the same for the Southern Hemisphere as they can see the Moon from the same position once the Earth rotates so they are facing the lit side.
When the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth, neither hemisphere can see it.
I don’t understand why you can’t see that the Moon cannot turn on its axis when the same side always faces the Earth. It certainly exposes different sides to the Sun as it orbits the Earth but it’s still not turning on its axis. It appears to turn due to its orbit around the Earth but that apparent turning is not around it’s axis, it’s strictly the effect of orbital motion.
Goddie says:
“We can see the Moon only when the Sun is shining on it […] wrt to us in the Northern Hemisphere. It would be the same for the Southern Hemisphere […] once the Earth rotates so they are facing the lit side.”
Why can’t both hemispheres can see the Moon at the same time:
https://tinyurl.com/yde3ghgh
The moon is in a (nearly) circular orbit. This is a (nearly) trivial case.
Any theory that hopes to explain whether a moon is ‘rotating’ must also be able to work for a moon in an eccentric orbit.
STANDARD THEORY:
If a chunk of rock is always facing the same orientation with respect to the “fixed stars”, then it is not rotating (whether in a circular orbit or an eccentric orbit or simply flying through space in no orbit at all).
If a chunk of rock is changing its orientation with respect to the “fixed stars”, then it is rotating (whether in a circular orbit or an eccentric orbit or simply flying through space in no orbit at all).
Any other theory needs to define special cases.
For a non-orbiting rock, it is not rotating when its alignment is fixed w.r.t. the stars.
For a circularly orbiting rock, it is not rotating when its alignment is fixed w.r.t. its planet.
For an eccentrically orbiting rock, it is not rotating when .. well there is no good answer to this.
And here is one other simple question that needs to be answerable — in what case would the earth not be rotating? When one side faces the moon all the time? When on side faces the sun all the time?
I don’t plan to get into this debate deeply atm (because there really is no debate). I am simply pointing out two (of many) reasons that the ‘standard theory’ is superior.
Tim, Yeah. Well put.
“For a circularly orbiting rock, it is not rotating when its alignment is fixed w.r.t. its planet.”
This is the so-called non-spinner, or JUST ORBITING model.
“For an eccentrically orbiting rock, it is not rotating when .. well there is no good answer to this.”
Right. With a very eccentric orbit, the rock first rotates CW then stops and rotates CCW.
Kinda like our Moon does:
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/154/moon-phase-and-libration-2018/
Impossible to reconcile with JUST ORBITING.
Whereas in the standard model the Moon is simply rotating at a constant rate wrt the stars and orbiting.
nate…”With a very eccentric orbit, the rock first rotates CW then stops and rotates CCW”.
No it doesn’t. It APPEARS to rotate CW and CCW but the body is always trying to move in a straight line. It is deviated from that straight line slightly by gravity and nudged step-by-step into a circular or elliptical orbit.
It would require an immense force acting tangentially to the body’s surface to start the body rotating about its axis and an equally immense force acting in the opposite direction to stop it rotating as it moved back toward the central body. There are no such tangential forces acting.
What you are describing is libration, an apparent rotation created as an illusion by the human mind. The reason an elliptical orbit occurs is that the force of gravity acts at a slight angle to the orbit at the farthest points of the orbit allowing the body’s linear momentum to be more effective. At the same time, the tangential angle to the orbit along which the body is trying to move is more inclined to a radial line from the central body, allowing us to see more of the body.
As the body moves around in the orbit and starts moving back to the central body, the force increases gradually and the body accelerates. As it nears the central body, the orbiting body’s momentum is maximized and so is the centripetal force of gravity. The body sweeps around the central body at maximum speed and maximum closeness to the central body. At that point, the tidally-locked face is directly toward the central body and we see only the near face.
“It APPEARS to rotate CW and CCW but the body is always trying to move in a straight line.”
Ok. Then in the circular orbit tidally-locked case, why wouldnt you say it just APPEARS to be NOT ROTATING?
IOW, you have to choose one reference frame and stick with it. If your reference frame is the Earth, then in the circular orbit it is not rotating and in the elliptical case it does rotate one way then the other.
“It would require an immense force acting tangentially to the bodys surface to start the body rotating about its axis and an equally immense force acting in the opposite direction to stop it rotating as it moved back toward the central body.”
EXACTLY. Because its angular momentum is conserved.
For the same reason, if it is rotating, it requires an immense torque to slow or stop its rotation.
But this is only true in the inertial frame wrt the stars.
In an eccentric CCW orbit, when the object is at its farthest distance and its orbital velocity is lowest, it appears to rotate CCW wrt to the Earth, and when its at its closest it appears to rotate CW wrt to the Earth.
But in both instance wrt to the inertial frame of the stars, it is SIMPLY rotating at a constant rate.
It is only when you choose the Planet Frame (a rotating frame) that things become messed up and contradictory.
tim…”Any theory that hopes to explain whether a moon is rotating must also be able to work for a moon in an eccentric orbit”.
I have already acknowledged your argument that the eccentricity of an orbit determines how much of a tidally-locked body shows but the effect you describe is libration, not rotation.
If you increased the eccentricity of the current lunar orbit, you’d be able to see a little more around the current face in the extremes of the orbit, but the Moon would not be turning around it’s axis any more than now, which is zero rotation.
You have to keep in mind that the forward momentum of the Moon is linear at all times. It wants to move in a straight line tangential to a radial line drawn through it from the Earth’s centre, if the orbit is circular. If it was suddenly released from the effect of Earth’s gravity it would shoot off along that tangential line.
In a more concentric orbit, the tangential line to a point on the orbital path is angled differently than it is on a circular orbit therefore we can see more of the face of the orbiting object. That does not mean the object has rotated on its axis, it means the orbital parameters are different.
For example, in a circular orbit, with a tidally-locked body, the same face always points directly at the body it is orbiting. However, with a concentric orbit, the same face points along a line bisecting the lines from the 2 focal points to the object. In the extremes of a very concentric orbit that means we can see more of the back end of the object as it moves away and more of the front face as it approaches. That’s what libration means, it is an apparent rotation not a real rotation.
“not a real rotation.”
Gordon cannot then explain the sun rise and set at each Apollo landing site so by experiment Gordon’s imagination is proven wrong.
As is often the case. Along with Tesla and a few others.
In this case an expensive experiment but worth it.
Ball4 is still lost.
They had to take Moon’s rotation into account to land in the right place, and they were well aware it rotates as the animation shows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnXdEMtU_DE
Wow. Fascinating. That’s a legit gem of video right there.
eben…”They had to take Moon’s rotation into account to land in the right place,”
Come on Eben, you have it right about climate alarmists why would you link to an article with an affected bimbo?
She shows the Moon rotating about the same rate as the Earth, yet we know the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. She also infers that the figure of 8 has something to do with the orbital entry point which is nonsense.
They likely used the figure of 8 as a safety measure in case they missed the Moon and got behind it. It would have taken an immense amount of fuel to catch up with it and get into orbit.
With the same side of the lunar face always pointing at Earth it is not possible for the Moon to rotate on its axis. The appearance of it rotating is an illusion created by the orbital forces that turn it incrementally while keep the same face toward the Earth. If you look at the process closely it is apparent that the turning does not involve a rotation about a central lunar axis.
Did somebody order a word salad ???
Thanks for the link Eben, I enjoyed that a lot.
eben…”Did somebody order a word salad ???”
Sorry, Eben, I am used to dealing with people who have no trouble reading and comprehending. There, does this concise reply make it easier for you?
Yeah Eben, that was nice and informative.
“They likely used the figure of 8…”
Gordon was clearly distracted by the presenter and missed all the facts.
So he makes up his own.
“They had to take Moon’s rotation into account to land in the right place”
Sure, just not its rotation on its own axis.
Stop embarrassing yourself
You can only rotate on your own axis
you cannot rotate on somebody else’s axes
That’s right Eben, you comply with the definition of a body’s rotational axis intersecting the body by the author DREMT linked. DREMT just does not understand his own link.
“Stop embarrassing yourself
You can only rotate on your own axis
you cannot rotate on somebody else’s axes”
The axis of rotation need not go through the body in question. The moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on an axis passing through the moon’s center of mass. The motion is referred to as orbiting.
DREMT incorrectly: The axis of rotation need not go through the body in question.
DREMT text book link by defn.: the axis of rotation intersects the rigid body.
Now I expect DREMT will look for an author that agrees with DREMT.
Wikipedia agrees with DREMT. Ball4 has the option to edit Wikipedia, or stop trolling.
Half way to the next data point , so maybe instead of trolling this place to death and engaging in retarded circular arguments get up to date on science while you wait
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MTRAeJPkFI
Oh I see! The man with the big feet and the small brain is back again.
That motivates me to post again a series of links to articles and reports showing that all people responsible for calculation and simulation of Moon landings MUST take Moon’s rotation about its axis into account.
*
According to the man with the big feet and the small brain, they are of course ALL WRONG!
They are all wrong because
” With the same side of the lunar face always pointing at Earth it is not possible for the Moon to rotate on its axis. The appearance of it rotating is an illusion created by the orbital forces that turn it incrementally while keep the same face toward the Earth. If you look at the process closely it is apparent that the turning does not involve a rotation about a central lunar axis. ”
Why do all these people not understand such simple, evident matter?
And before them the Babylonians, the Greeks, Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Kopal, Eckhardt, Chapront, Calame, Migus, Moons, Rambaux, Williams, and so many others?
Here is the list.
1. Hybrid Optimization of Powered Descent Trajectory for Manned Lunar Mission
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjsass/56/3/56_T-12-46/_pdf/-char/en
‘ Additionally, in these studies, engineering constraints for manned lunar missions and the influence of the Moon rotation are not taken into account. However, for standard trajectory design or simulation before launching the rocket, the error cannot be ignored. ‘
2. Optimal Lunar Landing Trajectory Design for Hybrid Engine
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2015/462072.pdf
‘ (ii)The moon rotates on its own axis with the constant angular velocity. ‘
3. Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century
Part 3: Transportation issues
Mission and Operation modes for Lunar Basing
‘ The Moon’s rotation is locked to its orbital motion; the Moon rotates under the orbit at one revolution per 27.3 days… ‘
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/LSBchapter03.pdf
4. Chinese scientists reconstruct Chang’e-4 probe’s landing on moon’s far side
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-09/25/c_138420913.htm
‘ As a result of the tidal locking effect, the moon’s revolution cycle is the same as its rotation cycle, and the same side always faces the earth. ‘
5. Constrained Trajectory Optimization of a Soft Lunar Landing from a Parking Orbit
Chapter 3 Moon Landing Problem
https://tinyurl.com/yczcaqtl
‘ The rotational period of the Moon about its own axis is equal to the period of revolution around the Earth. The equatorial surface velocity is approximately 4.6 m/s. This rotation would be a factor if the goal was to target a specific landing site because the site would move relative to the inertial frame. … ‘
6. Two-Dimensional Trajectory Optimization for Soft Lunar Landing Considering a Landing Site
https://tinyurl.com/yd84ggcr
‘ Because the Moon’s rotation affects the lander’s motion in the rotating frame, the Moon’s angular velocity has to be considered, and its value is 2.6632 * 10^-6 rad/s. …’
I could of course continue ad nauseam…
J.-P. D.
binny…”And before them the Babylonians, the Greeks, Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Kopal, Eckhardt, Chapront, Calame, Migus, Moons, Rambaux, Williams, and so many others?”
Because they lack the ability to observe the problem with the same awareness as Tesla, Dremt, and the guy with the big feet.
“…and the influence of the Moon rotation are not taken….”
Even NASA is screwed up about that. A degree in science does not teach scientists about the vagaries of the human mind, including illusions. There are many scientists out there who are still seriously confused about time and what it is.
Here’s Louis Essen on Einstein’s misunderstanding of time (he’s talking somewhat sarcastically):
“The definition of the unit of length or of time must be abandoned [to meet Einstein’s new definition]….
The contraction of length and the dilation of time can now be understood as representing the changes that have to be made to make the result of measurement constant. There is no question here of a physical theory [Einstein’s theory of relativity] but simply of a new system of units in which c is a constant, and length and time do not have constant units but have units that vary with v^2/c^2. Thus they are no longer independent, and space and time are intermixed by definition and not as a result of the same peculiar property of nature”.
In other words, Einstein did not understand that time is DEFINED as a constant based on the property of the rotation of the Earth. He took it upon himself, through nothing more than thought experiment, to re-define our human definitions of time and space. Essen noted that time and length are based on natural phenomena, length (the metre) defined as a constant and a small fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole and time being defined as a constant based on the natural phenomenon of the regularity of the Earth’s rotation.
In other words, Einstein took it upon himself to find a way to make c = speed of light, the Mother of all Constants, seemingly unaware that the unit of time used to measure c is a constant itself. So, he has based space-time theory on a thought-experiment while completely ignoring the defined CONSTANTS of the metre and the second.
The rest of Einstein’s theory is nothing more than Newtonian physics wrt to relative motion. No one has ever proved his fanciful claims that lengths change and time dilates with velocity.
The standard Newtonian definition of distance is roughly s = vt, where s = distance, v = velocity. Einstein changed that arbitrarily to s = vt (1 – v^2/c^2). The fraction created by 1 – v^2/c^2) now becomes a multiplier that can cause t to change and length, as distance, to change.
If Einstein can mess up this badly, then any of the scientist you cite, including NASA, can mess up. And they have.
Look at the mess of the world so-called scientists have made with this covid nonsense. Not one of them has the hard science to back their propaganda and fear-mongering.
Please note what happens when someone travels at the speed of light, according to Einstein.
S = vt(1-v^2/c^2) = vt(1 – 1) = vt(0)
space and time disappear!!!!
Even better, if someone manages to exceed the speed of light:
The expression v^2/c^2 > 1, therefore 1 – v^2/c^2 is negative.
So, space and time can become negative. Maybe we can go back in time.
Einstein should have studied real science, like engineering, and stopped the ridiculous thought-experiments. He went wrong when he began using acceleration in lieu of force and mass. In his mind, acceleration could make things happen but it can’t since it’s a product of a force acting on a mass. In the same manner, time has no effect on anything since it is a creation of the human mind.
Robertson
” Because they lack the ability to observe the problem with the same awareness as Tesla, Dremt, and the guy with the big feet. ”
You omitted ‘… and the small brain‘.
But in fact, this trolly reply shows us that you have no brain at all, and, by the way, that you never and never have been an engineer.
No former engineer on Earth would write such an incredible nonsense.
J.-P. D.
“Einstein should have studied real science, like engineering”
YOU didn’t study engineering. Why are you picking on Einstein?
bobd …”I can admit that the moon does not have a rotation of its own, since it is tidally locked to the earth and that is what determines its rate of rotation.
Because it is certainly rotating.”
It’s not rotating but it is rotating.
The initial problem was stated as follows: the Moon does not rotate on its axis. You just agreed with that so you are agreeing with Tesla, whom you claim had no idea what he was talking about.
The Moon is rotating about nothing, in any reference frame. It is performing curvilinear translation around the Earth in an orbital path. It’s action is no different than if it was moving in a straight line. So if you had a really long straight line that passed the Earth, the Moon would move along it with the same face pointed at the Earth as it passed a perpendicular line from the Earth to the long line. As it approached and as it passed it would show more of its face which is the case with lunar libration.
If you take the line and gradually bend it into the current orbit, the Moon would perform in the same way. The difference would be in the light it receives from the Sun. It’s still not rotating, it is orbiting under the influence of Earth’s gravitational field.
GR said: The Moon is rotating about nothing, in any reference frame.
Use polar coordinates (r,a) where ‘r’ is the radius and ‘a’ is the angle. Place your reference frame such that r=0 goes through the center of mass of the Moon. Place a=0 fixed onto a distant point like a star or a feature in the CMB. Because this reference frame is not rotating or accelerating it is inertial and an appropriate arbiter on the question of rotation. Does the ‘a’ value change for points on the surface of the Moon? The answer is a definitive and unquestionable YES. The Moon thus has angular velocity with respect to this reference frame. Therefore the Moon is rotating.
GR said: Its still not rotating, it is orbiting under the influence of Earths gravitational field.
You’re confused because the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth. The Moon’s orbital angular velocity O and its spin angular velocity S are equal such that S=O or S/O=1.
For S the (r,a) coordinates are aligned such that r=0 is fixed to the axis going through the Moon’s center of mass and a=0 is fixed to a distant point.
For O the (r,a) coordinates are aligned such that r=0 is fixed to the axis going through the Moon-Earth barycenter and a=0 is fixed to a distant point.
Notice that S and O are completely different measurements. Don’t let the fact that S/O=1 in this particular case fool you into conflating the two.
“Therefore the Moon is rotating…”
…but not on its own axis.
The correct interpretation of what I said would be
the moon is rotating but not on its’ own.
So you are a liar.
Because I actually said
I can admit that the moon does not have a rotation of its own, since it is tidally locked to the earth and that is what determines its rate of rotation.
Note I did not say axis.
BUSTED
My comment was in response to bdgwx. That is why I quoted bdgwx.
dremt…”Therefore the Moon is rotating
but not on its own axis”.
I would not even concede that. I think the spinners are taking liberties with the definition of rotation. Rotation implies the turning of a body about an internal axis. We are discussing the translation of a centre of mass about an external axis in an orbit.
We don’t usually say the Moon is rotating about the Earth we say it is revolving around the Earth, or orbiting the Earth. A firearm with a chamber holding bullets where the bullets revolve around a central axis is called a revolver. It is not called a rotator. I realize the words get used interchangeably at times but rotation is usually reserved for a body spinning around an internal axis or centre of gravity.
If the Moon did not have the force of gravity acting on it and still had its current linear momentum, it would be exhibiting linear translation. There would be no rotation about its axis.
In it’s current orbit, it is exhibiting curvilinear translation without local rotation. Each point on the Moon is orbiting the Earth along parallel, concentric orbits and each point has the same angular velocity ‘as a mass’. Taken individually, it can be proved that outer particles are moving faster than inner particles, however, as a mass, each particle must complete an orbit in the same time as all other particles. That’s the definition of curvilinear translation.
“We don’t usually say the Moon is rotating about the Earth we say it is revolving around the Earth, or orbiting the Earth.”
Sure. You can say rotating, revolving or orbiting. Revolving or orbiting would be the correct terminology from the astronomical perspective. I refrain from using the term “curvilinear translation” because it usually summons SkepticGoneWild to start hurling abuse. And I can make my point clearly by using “rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter”, anyway. I could start saying “revolution about…” instead, I suppose.
bdg…”The Moon thus has angular velocity with respect to this reference frame. Therefore the Moon is rotating”.
We are not talking about the Moon’s angular orbital velocity we are talking about the angular velocity of it’s surface about its axis.
Go back to your radial line but this time allow the radial line r to contact the Moon’s surface at x and contact the Moon’s axis at y. We are interested in finding out if x will rotate 360 degrees about y as the Moon completes an orbit with the constraint that the line xy will always point to the origin of r. That is, line xy will remain on r throughout the entire orbit.
Let r sweep through 360 degrees. Does the line x-y rotate around the axis y? No, it can’t, because xy must always remain on the the radial line r.
“Youre confused because the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth. The Moons orbital angular velocity O and its spin angular velocity S are equal such that S=O or S/O=1”.
You are presuming, incorrectly that the Moon rotates about its axis exactly once per orbit. The Moon’s orbital angular velocity is described by the angular velocity of the radial line you described earlier. It’s spin angular velocity is zero.
Tidal locking is what I described earlier. If you have the radial line, r, you defined earlier, extending through the Moon so it contacts the near face at x and meets the axis at y, then with tidal locking, the line xy cannot ever leave the radial line r. Point x on the surface cannot rotate about y and still have the line xy remain on r.
The point you are missing is this. In a tidally-locked orbit, all points along the line r are turning in parallel concentric circles. That includes all points along the line r through the Moon. Therefore, the axial point y is turning in a concentric circle outside the point x where r intercepts the near face. That means x can never rotate around y.
I proved that with my coin experiment.
GR,
Your coordinate system or reference frame of choice is non-inertial. It is non-inertial because the coordinates are fixed onto specific points on the Moon’s surface. That means as the Moon changes direction in its orbit the reference frame changes orientation as well. Your reference frame of choice here is rotating with the Moon. You cannot make statements about rotation using non-inertial reference frames.
Again…use polar coordinates (r,a) where the radius r=0 is fixed to the axis through the center of mass of the Moon and the angle a=0 is fixed onto a distant point like a star or a feature on the CMB. That is worth repeating…the angle a=0 is not fixed to a point on the Moon, but a point far outside of the Moon. That is important because points outside of the Moon are not biased by what is happening with the Moon. That is why this reference frame is inertial. It is because it is not itself rotating or changing orientation. On this reference frame the angle value of each point on the Moon’s surface is changing. That means the Moon has non-zero angular velocity.
And of course X does not rotate around Y in your reference frame of choice. That’s because your reference frame is itself rotating. This should be obvious when you draw a line from X to Y and observe that it is changing orientation with a respect to inertial points that lie far beyond the Moon and which are not affected by it.
A chalk circle drawn on the edge of a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, from any reference frame, as the merry-go-round rotates.
indeed! what we have here is an imaginary axis for each object and object standing on objects in the entire universe and they are all rotating on their axes. only some of these objects have an independent spin. . . .e.g. the earth, the sun, some iceskaters, operating merry go rounds, etc. the moon is not on that list, nor is the chaulked circle, or the kid with the death grip on the bouncing pony.
Its just that some people are a bit impracticably imaginative. Its apparent who those people are on this board. They to a person would make terrible engineers.
Bill, “They to a person would make terrible engineers.”
Well the Apollo engineers were very good. And luckily they agreed with Astronomy and us that Moon rotates on its axis.
Also, the Moon clearly doesnt have the same motion of a horse fixed on a Merry-go-round. A rigid rotator model doesnt fit.
Ever see a horse on a Merry-Go-Round do this?
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/154/moon-phase-and-libration-2018/
That cannot be explained unless the Moon has its own independent rotation.
nate…the Moon clearly doesnt have the same motion of a horse fixed on a Merry-go-round. A rigid rotator model doesnt fit”.
There are parallels. The fixed horse has every particle in the horse orbiting an external axis at a fairly constant angular velocity. Same as the Moon. They both have the same side pointing in to the external axis. If either one of them had its particles rotating around a local axis the same face could not point in throughout the orbit.
With regard to the Apollo astronauts, you don’t get into that program for thinking independently. You are selected for conformity to a dogma. Even if one of them thought the Moon did not rotate on its axis he/she would never state that for fear of being washed out of the program.
“The fixed horse has every particle in the horse orbiting an external axis at a fairly constant angular velocity. Same as the Moon.”
Nope. As the video clearly shows.
“They both have the same side pointing in to the external axis. If either one of them had its particles rotating around a local axis the same face could not point in throughout the orbit.”
Nope, the Moon clearly doesnt.
As Feynman never said, if observations dont fit your theory,
just make up your own observations.
His real quote:
“it doesnt make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesnt matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.”
“There are parallels”
That’s right, Gordon, there are parallels. And there only need to be parallels, since nobody is arguing the moon is actually rigidly attached to the Earth. So it doesn’t need to behave exactly as though it is.
Gordon, “With regard to the Apollo astronauts, you dont get into that program for thinking independently. You are selected for conformity to a dogma.”
Clearly the engineers were selected for being knowledgeable and competent. The proof for that was in the pudding. The pinnacle of engineering achievement.
They had to think outside the box to solve numerous unforeseen problems, eg on Apollo 13.
“Even if one of them thought the Moon did not rotate on its axis he/she would never state that for fear of being washed out of the program.”
They would have feared incorrectly calculating the fuel needed to make a successful landing on the Moon, because its rotation actually makes a difference in that.
For anyone responding to Feynman with ‘well it doesnt explain all the observations, but its close enough’
Feynman would have said:
Well, there is an alternative model that explains all of the observations straightforwardly.
So it doesnt matter how much you love your model, it is still wrong.
“Its just that some people are a bit impracticably imaginative.”
Nice way of putting it!
No Gordon, I did not agree with Tesla completely.
I agree the moon has no rotation of it’s own, not that it is not rotating.
It is rotating as part of the earth moon system which is tidally locked together.
So you agree with us, and Tesla, that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. Good to know.
dremt…”the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis”.
That alleged barycentre is within the Earth. With some binary stars it is located between the stars. In that case, the Earth would be rotating about the barycentre but the Moon would still be orbiting the Earth. With the stars, they’d be orbiting the barycentre.
The Sun apparently has a barycentre, not to be confused with where Barry lives. No one refers to the planets as rotating about that barycentre. The Earth does rotate on it’s axis but it orbits the Sun. That is, it revolves around the Sun, just as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
If there is a barycentre in the Earth-Moon system of significance, the Earth would be wobbling as it orbited the Sun. I have never seen proof of that.
“The initial problem was stated as follows: the Moon does not rotate on its axis. You just agreed with that…”
Guess we’ll have to add blob to the list of “Non-Spinners”. Think that would finally put our numbers on this blog into the double digits.
No I didn’t agree to that.
I agreed that the moon doesn’t rotate on it’s own, I said nothing about the axis it rotates on as a part of the earth moon system.
So you agree with us, and Tesla, that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. Good to know.
No I don’t
I agree you are confused and using the term rotate when you should use the term revolve.
The moon is revolving around the earth moon barycenter described by one axis, and rotating around another axis.
I never said it wasn’t rotating around it’s own axis, so you are putting words into my mouth, good to know what tactics you are using.
BUSTED
So you said,
“I agreed that the moon doesn’t rotate on it’s own”
Only two ways to read that, which each beg their own question:
1) on its own what?
2) what does it rotate along with?
DREMT, the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. It’s spin angular velocity is modulated by the gravitational interactions with the Earth. Therefore the Moon does not rotate “on its own”. However, it does rotate “on its own axis” where the axis is defined by r=0 being through its center of mass and a=0 fixed onto a distant point. In the former “own” means without influence from something else. In the later “own” means to possess something.
What the ****
2) what does it rotate along with?
You cnut read?
I said it is tidally locked with the earth and rotates and revolves with the earth synchronously.
Tell me what part of that is evading your brain?
bdgwx…draw a chalk circle on the edge of a merry go round. Is the chalk circle rotating on its own axis, just because the merry go round is rotating?
You can answer with one word.
The piece of chalk you used is, yes.
Using polar coordinates (r,a) where r=0 is fixed to the center of mass of the piece of chalk and a=0 is fixed on a distant object then the points on the surface of the piece of chalk have non-zero angular velocity. This reference frame is not rotating so it is inertial and valid for use in assessing the question of rotation.
So you recognize that the chalk circle is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis, but for some reason you think it is different for the piece of chalk?
The chalk circle itself it is not orbiting, rotating, or even moving at all. It is but calcite particles that are semi-permanently deposited on the ground.
It is the piece of chalk that you hold in your hand that is both orbiting the axis at the center of the merry-go-round and spinning on the axis at the center of mass of that chalk piece.
And just to be clear “on its own axis” means the axis through the center of mass of the chalk piece. This is the only axis that can be used to assess rotation. The axis that goes though the merry-go-round is used to assess whether bodies lying outside the merry-go-round are orbiting it. The axis that goes through merry-go-round is different than the axis that goes through the piece of chalk.
The chalk circle is drawn on the edge of the merry-go-round. The particles comprising the floor of the merry-go-round within the circle are moving in concentric circles about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, as it rotates. The chalk circle is not rotating in its own axis, from any reference frame.
The piece of chalk is sitting on the edge of the merry-go-round. The particles comprising the piece of chalk are moving in concentric circles about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. The piece of chalk is not rotating in its own axis, from any reference frame.
DREMT, earthen gravity is producing friction between your piece of chalk and your merry-go-ground forcing your chalk 1) to orbit the center of the merry-go-round cg AND 2) rotate once on the chalk’s own axis about the chalk cg. It is clear that you continue NOT to understand basic mechanics.
Speed up the merry-go-round and both of these forcings will stop when another force overcomes the static friction as the chalk flies off just like the cut the string video.
It is easy to understand why DREMT continues to go wrong here: DREMT never experiments.
DREMT prefers imaginary science to real lab work. Q: Why doesn’t DREMT just imagine a CV19 vaccine and end the pandemic? A: DREMT doesn’t do experiments.
Deliberate point-misser and troll Ball4 does his thing.
Thank you for reading my stuff DREMT.
Now look up a real experiment or do one on your own to prove to yourself why you are wrong. College physics courses come with lab courses that prove the lecture material. DREMT is a great example why college lab courses are important for understanding physics.
Wikipedia: Rotation around a fixed axis.
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
Every particle in the piece of chalk moves in a circle about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore the chalk is rotating about that axis, and not on its own axis.
I’ll unconfuse the sometimes unreliable wiki for DREMT with specifics & with yet another lecture, attending the lab course for understanding the mechanics is up to DREMT.
1)Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the chalk moves in a circle about a single line the axis of the merry-go-round. This line is called the axis of merry-go-round rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis of the merry-go-round to all chalk particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The merry-go-round axis of rotation need not go through the chalk body as is the case for chalk orbiting the merry-go-round axis.
2)Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the chalk moves in a circle about a single line the axis of the chalk. This line is called the axis of chalk rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis of the chalk to all chalk particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. An axis of rotation need not go through the body but it does so in the case for chalk rotating on its own axis.
Only 1) is occurring, since the circles drawn out by the paths of the particles making up the chalk are concentric. If axial rotation of the chalk was occurring in addition to 1), the paths of the particles would cross.
Go into the lab and prove this to yourself DREMT. I predict you will find there is one & only one chalk rotation rate on its own axis where the lines do not cross. Try all the other ones and they will cross.
But you HAVE do that in the lab, yet another lecture is useless.
Only with zero axial rotations per orbit do the lines not cross.
The axis is defined by the motion of the moon, so even if that axis is not going through part of the moon, it is still it’s own axis.
There are two axes with respect to the moon, one that it rotates around and one it revolves around. The rotational axis does go through the moon and the revolving axis does not, but they are both still the moon’s own axes.
But the but it’s not on it’s own axis is a fallacy called the non-sequitur.
Another one misses the point.
No that’s wrong DREMT, I see DREMT did not go into the lab. DREMT presents another useless and wrong imaginary lecture.
My careful lab work shows the lines DO cross with zero chalk axial rotations on its own axis per chalk orbit. Go into the lab DREMT, learn the actual mechanics. No imagination needed.
#2
Only with zero axial rotations per orbit do the lines not cross.
Happy to let the number of repetitions go into the treble digits.
bob, there are two relevant axes with respect to the moon in this discussion, one that moon rotates around and one moon orbits earth around.
You have let imprecise semantics confuse DREMT into thinking you have missed the point.
Thats wrong #2 DEMT as lab work shows, your lines then cross, your answer is only good in your imagination & will always be wrong no matter your increment.
In the lab: Only with one chalk axial rotation on its own axis per merry-go-round axis orbit do the lines not cross. Happy to let your number of repetitions go into the infinite digits as the real correct lab answer does not change so I will not need to answer.
Actual lab work shows the chalk has to rotate once on its own axis per orbit to keep the lines from crossing, which you will find in the lab with tea cups, Gordon’s coin, and the moon. Or any other set of objects.
I’ll answer only when you have gone into the lab, properly performed the experiment, and your answer agrees with lab work.
Ball4
Revolve is to move in a circle.
Rotate is to spin on an axis.
Orbit is the path and object that is revolving around another follows.
Drempty continues to use rotate to mean revolve.
If you want to use orbits instead of revolves go for it, but anyone with a 8th graders understanding of astronomy knows what you mean.
Apparently Drempty is still lacking that level of education.
#3
Only with zero axial rotations per orbit do the lines not cross.
DREMT sometimes does continue to use rotate to mean revolve so switching to orbit (about external axis) and rotate (about internal axis) in lectures ends that particular DREMT confusion.
The rest of DREMT’s confusion will take DREMT properly doing the lab course proving his imagination wrong like Dr. Spencer has done when DREMT gets confused about climate and/or weather.
#4
Only with zero axial rotations per orbit do the lines not cross.
bobdroege
When you write
” I can admit that the moon does not have a rotation of its own, since it is tidally locked to the earth and that is what determines its rate of rotation. ”
I cannot really agree with you: it contradicts all I have read until now in many sources.
*
1. The Moon has very well a rotation of its own: it was billions of years ago much faster than today, much nearer to Earth than now, and Earth’s rotation was much faster than now as well.
That the rotation of both bodies slowed down, is due to the tidal forces that both exert on one another.
As a consequence of this slowdown, the Moon’s distance to Earth increases by about 4 cm per year.
It has been observed that Earth’s rotation currently slows down at a rate of 1.64 milliseconds per century.
Interestingly, when you compute, using that number, Earth’s day length 400,000,000 years ago, you get the same value that two paleologists derived from Devon coral analysis, namely 22 hours.
2. If the Moon was in the state of tidal locking right now, it would no longer rotate about its axis, and… surprise: it would no longer show the same face during its revolution around us (and very certainly it did not billions of years ago; what we are currently experiencing is a kind of snapshot).
This final tidal locking state should in theory happen in about 3 billion years, but it won’t: the Sun then will be near the end of its lifetime, and grow up to a size above the distance separating it from Earth and Moon.
But nonetheless, this final tidal locking we pretty good can observe, when having for example a closer look at Pluto’s moon Charon.
*
My source is
https://docplayer.org/51091670-Die-gezeiten-i-gezeitenkraefte-und-gezeitenbeschleunigungen.html
Last year, I wanted to translate and reedit the stuff into English; but that is a huge lot of work, and it probably would interest nobody or worse: would be discredited and denigrated by the usual Pseudoskeptcis.
The humble German Norbert Bertels, probably a physics teacher highly interested in astronomy, is something like the absolute antithesis to the ignorant boaster nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’. Unfortunately, he died by cancer in 2007 during the elaboration of the document.
J.-P. D.
Bindindon,
I agree with everything you say.
I was just trying to illustrate how people take things out of context and misrepresent what people say.
“2. If the Moon was in the state of tidal locking right now, it would no longer rotate about its axis”
Bindidon, is this wording intended? Doesn’t read like it means what you wanted. You agree the moon has always rotated on its own axis, rotation slowing to current 1 rotation on its own axis per orbit tidally locked in perpetuity until disturbed but that’s not what you write.
Ball4
” Bindidon, is this wording intended? ”
Of course it is.
The Moon is on the road to tidal locking. And when it has reached that final state, it is said in the document I showed the link to, that it will stop rotating.
That’s all.
Wiki’s opinion differs here from Bertels’ in so far as there, tidal locking’s final state means both bodies show the same face to each another.
J.-P. D.
The Moon is already tidally locked at one rotation on its own axis per orbit of Earth.
OK.
The end of the document is amazing.
Bertels writes, as an alternative to Earth and Moon becoming absorbed by the Sun:
” It is also possible that the Earth can assume a new orbit radius of around 1.7 AU because the Sun loses mass in the stage of the red giant due to the strong solar wind and thus also loses gravitational force, but Earth’s own angular momentum is retained.
But the tidal effect of the Sun in turn removes angular momentum from the Earth-Moon system, with the result that their distance decreases again.
The Moon then will come so close to Earth that it will be torn apart by the tidal forces and the fragments will be in one ring around the Earth, similar to the Saturn ring. ”
J.-P. D.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto-Charon_System.gif
WHich show that an outside of the orbit viewer would see all sides of both Pluto and Charon.
Which means that both are rotating and revolving.
Same goes for an observer outside the earth moon system.
Which means that both the earth and the moon are rotating.
Unbelievably, blob still does not get it.
You are terribly confused and don’t understand that whether or not the axis is it’s own matters. It doesn’t because the axis is always defined by the motion of the object in question.
So the claim that it’s not it’s own axis is irrelevant.
You are becoming more and more irrelevant.
Responding in the wrong place again, blob?
Forget about qualifiers like “on its own axis” or “around the earth”. The moon is rotating. Period.
It is rotating at a fixed rate — approximately 360 degrees per 27.3 days = 13.2 degrees per day. Stars move across the moon’s sky at this rate.
You could choose to view the universe from a reference frame that is *also* rotating at 13.2 degrees/day. The moon is not rotating within that rotating reference frame. In some ways, that is a very handy reference frame to use — the moon is (approximately) fixed in that particular rotating reference frame, and a line from the earth to the moon goes (approximately) through the same point on the moon all the time. In other ways, this is a poor reference frame to choose — rotating reference frames introduce all sort of complications like ‘fictitious forces’ and there is no physical object (like a merry-go-round platform) that defines the reference frame .
——————-
One other complication is that this sort of rotating reference frame is NOT handy to describe what happens in an eccentric orbit. Suppose the moon still took 27.3 days to go around the earth, but the orbit was highly eccentric. Then some times the ‘rotation’ of the moon around the earth might 5 degrees/day and other times it might be 20 degrees per day. The same side of the moon would NOT always face the earth. The stars would still continue to progress at 13.2 degrees per day across the sky.
If you use a frame defined my the line from the earth to the moon, the moon would then rotate forward and backward (relative to that line) every time it moved around the earth.
“Forget about qualifiers like “on its own axis” or “around the earth”. The moon is rotating. Period.”
No thanks, Tim, I will continue with the qualifier “on its own axis” since that is what the debate has always been about. Good to see you are continuing to comment despite earlier claiming you had no interest in getting involved.
No you clowns first started with the moon is not rotating period.
Then you brought in the not on it’s own axis junk.
And you still don’t know the difference between rotating and revolving.
The moon does both.
It has always been “on its own axis”, blob.
DREMPTY please stop lying and trolling
Its becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously, blob.
Good, another lie and another troll
Yes, you are making a habit of it.
tim…”It is rotating at a fixed rate approximately 360 degrees per 27.3 days = 13.2 degrees per day”.
In that case, at the half way point in its orbit, the near side would be facing away from the Earth.
Don’t be afraid to try my coin experiment, it proves conclusively that a mark on one coin touching the face of the other can never leave that face as that coin is moved around the other. Try rotating the moving coin and you cannot do it.
Furthermore, it proves that a line from the axis of the moving coin to that mark can never rotate about the axis if the line is to always point toward the centre of the other coin.
Further-furthermore, ever point along that line is moving in concentric circles around the centre of the other coin, including the axis. That is curvilinear translation, not rotation.
Gordon, you don’t seem coordinated enough to rotate a coin while simultaneously sliding around in an orbit.
Gordon says “It is performing curvilinear translation around the Earth in an orbital path. ”
You seem to think the moon behaves like a train car, where the car is forced to change orientation when the tracks change direction. Nope!
The train car changes orientation to match the direction of the tracks because the tracks apply a torque to the car. Gravity does not provide a similar torque to an object like a moon. If a big rock approached earth with a fixed orientation relative to the stars and then somehow got captured by the earth’s gravity, it would STILL have no rotation with respect to the star.
Yeah, over the course of millions or billions of years the tidal forces could cause a TINY torque to lock the rock with earth so the some side always faced inward. But this would NOT happen “automatically” with the first orbit!
It changes orientation the same way a ball on a string tethered at one end changes orientation.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torque_animation.gif#mw-jump-to-license
What is “it”?
A moon in an eccentric orbit does NOT change orientation the same way a ball on variable-length stick.
tim…”A moon in an eccentric orbit does NOT change orientation the same way a ball on variable-length stick”.
It would if the rope holding the ball had an elastic quality and could stretch a bit. In fact, that’s what causes different eccentricities in orbits. The effect of gravity on the orbiting body varies slightly with the angular momentum of the body and the distance of the body from the centre of gravitation.
tim…”You seem to think the moon behaves like a train car, where the car is forced to change orientation when the tracks change direction. Nope!
The train car changes orientation to match the direction of the tracks because the tracks apply a torque to the car. Gravity does not provide a similar torque to an object like a moon”.
*****
It does behave like a train car. The train car does not turn along a curving track due to a torque applied, it turns due to friction between the wheels and the track. If sufficient torque was applied, the car would fall off the tracks as it rotated horizontally but it would likely require a torque large enough to rip the rails off the sleepers.
You might argue that a top-heavy laden car experiences a torque on a curve as the centre of gravity rotates it about the rail vertically. If the torque becomes too great, the car could topple over.
I used to travel with a buddy in his semi-trailer truck and when we hit a really curvy stretch of road, which he naturally took too fast, I felt myself thrown up against the passenger-side door as the truck turned to the left. That effect was due to my body wanting to go straight and the seat of my pants on the seat being dragged left. If the door had been open I’d have fallen clean out of the truck.
I said to my buddy, “Do you realize the only thing stopping us going straight into the river to our right is about a square foot of rubber on each tire”?. He thought about it for a second then laughed. Did not slow him down any.
Just as the train car changes direction to match the curvature of the track, the Moon changes direction to match the accelerating force of gravity. The Moon has linear momentum and momentum can be regarded as a pseudo-force. So you have a force tangential to the gravitational field and a force applied normally by the gravitational field and the Moon follows the resultant path.
By following the resultant path, all points on the Moon follow that resultant path at the same angular velocity determined by the angular velocity of a radial line from the Earth through the Moon. It’s the same for the rail car. If that rail car was on a circular track, all points on the car would complete the circuit at the same angular velocity, with the same side pointing in.
At no time would the rail car leave the track and rotate through 360 degrees.
“it turns due to friction between the wheels and the track. ”
Exactly! And gravity creates approximately zero friction. It creates approximately zero torque. (Yes, there are small effects due to tidal forces, but that takes many many many orbits before “tidal locking” occurs. Tidal locking is not something that happens immediately!
You introduced the analogy of sitting in a truck on a curving road. Think a moment about what would happen if you were sitting in a swivel chair with (approximately) perfect bearings in the vertical axle. You recognized that a force was required to keep you from travelling straight (and not fall out the side of the truck). Surely you can similarly recognized that a torque is required to keep you from facing the same direction all the time. If you sat in that swivel seat as the truck turned from north to west, you would keep facing north!
It (the moon) changes orientation the same way a ball on a string tethered at one end changes orientation.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torque_animation.gif#mw-jump-to-license
So … why did you show a ball on a ROD???
A ball on a rigid rod would indeed start to rotate (relative to the ‘fixed stars’) because the rigidity of the rod constrains it to do so.
Gravity is more like a string, pulling only inward. Or like a rod attached to a frictionless axle holding the ball.
You are getting there, slowly…take a trip down to here to complete the picture:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473894
Gordo, as usual, displays his ignorance of physics and engineering when he writes:
swannie…”Having been employed for a while in railroad safety engineering, allow me to set you straight”.
This is interesting technical information which I am always glad to receive. However, the wheels also have extended inner rims that sit inside the rails to prevent the wheels sliding off the track sideways. It’s the friction between that inner rim and the track that guides the rail car around a curve.
It might interest you to know the subway in Montreal, Canada runs on rubber wheels. At least, they used to. I don’t know how they keep the cars centred.
Gordo wrote:
Sorry guy, the rims aren’t supposed to touch the side of the rails. You are neglecting the fact that the curves are also sloped at an angle designed for a range of speeds. It’s the cone which keeps the truck centered between the rails. If conditions are such that the rims are applying lateral force to the rails, perhaps the train is running too fast for the slope, that could result in a derailment.
Swanson is substantially right here.
The wheels on a train are slightly conical. The are larger diameter on the inside than on the outside.
Thus when a turn is encountered centrifugal force pushes the outside wheel to the larger diameter on the inside of the wheel while the inside wheel is pushed to the smaller diameter part of the wheel. This causes the outside wheel to cover more distance than the inside wheel with each turn of the axle causing the train to turn without an increase in friction which Swanson called out correctly has a big safety concern as well as a big maintenance problem.
The flange on the inside of the wheels is there as a means of keeping the train on the tracks, more of a safety net than something that turns the train. Though Gordon gets some partial credit for his idea but trains would have to go a lot slower if thats all that did the work of turning. I just jumped in here because Swanson’s explanation was a bit thick in the details.
“Gravity does not provide a similar torque to an object like a moon. If a big rock approached earth with a fixed orientation relative to the stars and then somehow got captured by the earth’s gravity, it would STILL have no rotation with respect to the star.”
“then somehow got captured by the earth’s gravity” somehow is difficult, but one could use rocket power to make it simple.
It seems the big rock would be easier if it was in the orbit of the Sun, but if big rock was in lunar orbit, one apply rocket power to it to have get in an solar escape velocity. And one can reverse that, from being in an solar escape trajectory and brake at right time to get into the lunar orbit.
But what would doing is going into an orbit around the sun.
The sun rotate once every 25 days {or something} and you could have star which rotated as the same period as a big rock orbits it. And were one to stand on rotating star, one could have the big rock always at zenith. Or if stood different part of star always have rock at same point in the sky, but the stars would move in to sky. And they move the same way as on a big rock.
So if don’t stop rock with the rocket power, the stars can appear not move in the sky. But if go into orbit around the sun, they slowly move in the sky in same way as star which rotates at same period as a large rock’s orbital period.
Now add the Earth, a large rock orbiting the Earth and the sun is like just orbiting the Sun. But orbits Earth faster than 1 year.
Without adding Earth- a large rock, would have one side facing the Sun. It would be “tidally locked to sun” even though it wasn’t “forced” to be tidally locked.
But with the Earth added it goes around the Earth, and likewise be tidally locked to Earth, without being forced to be tidally locked {it started out, not spinning].
And also Moon not always facing the Sun. Instead it’s always facing the Earth.
Or go on the near side of Moon and Earth always roughly at one point in the sky {Earth does appear to bob up and down a bit due to the angle of lunar orbit to Earth}.
BUT the Moon is tidally locked by gravitational force {it is forced}. It’s a gravitational gradient “force” and plus it’s forced to move further Earth, due to Earth spin {which is slowing the Earth’s spin]. At about 3 cm further distance per year.
Also Earth appears bigger and then gets smaller.
gbaikie, I am not sure what point(s) you are trying to make exactly with your various objects and orbits. Let’s make it simple and precise.
A rocket is controlled to fly in a perfectly straight line with no change in orientation (compared to the ‘fixed stars’). It is towing a perfectly round metal sphere (with a few markings to indicate orientation) which is also maintaining constant orientation and speed relative to the ‘fixed stars’. So for example, one spot on the sphere will be facing Alpha Centauri and one will be facing Betelgeuse. It travels past the earth at an appropriate speed and gently releases the sphere, putting the sphere in to orbit. The sphere will start to curve around the earth.
But here is the important fact (for this discussion). The point initially facing Alpha Centauri will *continue* to face Alpha Centauri.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Assume the cannonball is launched forwards from the cannon without spin. As it travels forwards, a point at the bottom of the cannonball remains oriented towards the ground. In the animation where it completes an orbit, the point at the bottom of the cannonball would have remained oriented towards the ground the whole way around the Earth.
It would not be tidally locked, so the same point would not be facing down.
Yes, it would.
That’s wrong DREMT, launched “without spin” the cannon ball has no vector on it showing rotation about its own axis as is obvious in the picture. That rotational vector, and the torque applied to create, is only in your imagination.
Their denial continues.
DREMT, your hand spins up your teacup, Gordon’s hand spins up his coin. Where is the hand on the cannon ball spinning it up after being launched “without spin”? There isn’t one. Only in your imagination.
Ball4 revels in his own confusion.
Notice, “As it travels forwards, a point at the bottom of the cannonball remains oriented towards the ground.”
is a declarative statement. But there seems to be no logical reason why this must happen, that is stated.
When can we expect a reason or logical basis or physics based argument?
If the declarative statement is simply repeated, we will have to assume there is no logical basis.
“When can we expect a reason or logical basis or physics based argument?”
Ok, Ill have to answer that. At t = infinity.
With real physics, as Ball4 aptly notes, ‘Where is the hand on the cannon ball spinning it up after being launched ‘without spin’? There isn’t one.’
There is no torque applied by Earths gravity on a spherical cannonball.
As Im sure you all know, Newton’s Law for rotation says that
with no torque the angular velocity of an object cannot change.
The angular velocity of the launched cannonball is 0. Therefore it must remain 0. That means its orientation is FIXED wrt to the stars.
Even DREMT agrees that this is not consistent with rotation like the Moon.
Thus there is no reason or logical basis or physics-based argument for the cannon ball, launched without rotation, to start rotating.
Why does DREMT think that simply declaring something, without any factual or logical basis, makes it a fact?
It doesn’t.
“real interest though is how independent spin comes to occur when no obvious gravitational force is around to induce ”
Nice change of subject there.
Spins are easy to get from the chaos of the early solar system.
Everything is spinning. Rocks collide with a glancing blow, they fly off spinning.
If two spinning rocks flying linearly past each other, gravity will make them orbit each other. Collisions with dust may slow them and tighten their orbit.
Of course gravity brings various pieces together and causes the sun to fire up, and makes the large resulting pieces spherical and orbit the sun.
Nate says:
Nice change of subject there.
Spins are easy to get from the chaos of the early solar system.
Everything is spinning. Rocks collide with a glancing blow, they fly off spinning.
If two spinning rocks flying linearly past each other, gravity will make them orbit each other. Collisions with dust may slow them and tighten their orbit.
Of course gravity brings various pieces together and causes the sun to fire up, and makes the large resulting pieces spherical and orbit the sun.
==================================
Nice obfuscation Nate. You miss the primary point about spin. That fact is we don’t understand spin entirely. Einstein threw a curve into space. Where that curve resides and its limits aren’t understood. The earth is spinning on its axis obviously from every perspective (unless we go geocentric) the moon rotates only from some perspectives.
What you guys tend to do is elevate your analytical models into factual truths. Its often done in academia where you are surrounded with people of the same motivations. Everything you guys do is of the utmost importance to yourselves. No accountability exists but to the select group. No restriction on wild speculation as long as its tolerated by the select group. No real recognition of ignorance as that’s a sign of weakness.
Gordon, DREMT, and myself get it. Its fundamental to skepticism that one not take oneself (and our skill sets) too seriously. This is what separates successful professionals from experts with no accountability. And a lot of people never comprehend the difference or why its important.
Bill,
This is become your cut and paste answer for any discussion where you are out of your depth:
“That fact is we don’t understand” fill-in-the-blank.
Its almost always wrong.
“The earth is spinning on its axis obviously from every perspective (unless we go geocentric) the moon rotates only from some perspectives.:
Bill you’re quite fond of making up your own facts, and ignoring those shown to you by others.
The Earth and Moon are both spinning wrt to the inertial frame of the stars.
From a geocentric view the Earth is not spinning.
From a lunacentric view the Moon is not spinning.
Duh.
Nate says:
Bill,
This is become your cut and paste answer for any discussion where you are out of your depth:
“That fact is we don’t understand” fill-in-the-blank.
Its almost always wrong.
=============================================
If you have something relevant to add like why something is wrong you input would be more welcome. As it stands you and Bindidon ought to conspire to establish a national bellyachers convention.
Bill, if you go back and look Ive given you lots of revelant facts. But you simply ignore them and blather on about what we dont understand.
Leprechauns and Climate:
“This is standard operating procedure for those who have gone this far into non-science. If you try to pin them down on any specific claim they have made, […] they squirm and fidget and start spouting completely new stuff to drown out the questions on their first claims. They almost never defend their claims in detail, they just move on to new ones.”
https://tinyurl.com/y8nldhvf
I will just wait until you guys review your use of an inertial reference frame vs a non-inertial reference frame and either come to the the understanding that a non-inertial reference frame is the correct frame of dispute why its in appropriate as offered up here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
No, it says you have to invent the fictitious Coriolis force if you don’t use an inertial reference frame.
Just like you have to invent fictitious forces to explain lunar axial precession, which is not aligned with the orbital plane.
And some other mysterious effect to explain why the moon does not show the same area to earth all the time, again not aligned with the orbital plane but with the rotation around is pole. An great Occam failure when it is easily explained with an elliptical orbit and rotation on its own axis.
“In astronomy, precession refers to any of several gravity-induced, slow and continuous changes in an astronomical body’s rotational axis or orbital path.”
Gravity is not a fictitious force, Svante.
“In astronomy, precession refers to any of several gravity-induced, slow and continuous changes in an astronomical bodys rotational axis or orbital path.”
The Moon experiences ‘rotational axis precession’, but how can it do that if there is no rotational axis??!!
So AXIAL TILT, AXIAL PRECESSION, POLAR COORDINATES, are all parameters that cannot be defined!!
Remember next time, to cover your eyes and plug your ears whenever the rotational axis is mentioned, because it doesnt exist.
#2
“In astronomy, precession refers to any of several gravity-induced, slow and continuous changes in an astronomical body’s rotational axis or orbital path.”
Gravity is not a fictitious force, Svante.
Rotational precession without rotation, brilliant : – )
There is precession, and there is precession in astronomy. In astronomy, the cause is gravity.
“Rotational precession without rotation, brilliant”
Yep its a neat trick, Svante. Somehow, some way, it all makes sense, it just can’t be explained to mere mortals.
#2
There is precession, and there is precession in astronomy. In astronomy, the cause is gravity.
Nice hand waving.
I’ve explained already, in great detail, numerous times now, how a moon moving without axial rotation as you see it, could be seen to have poles and axial tilt, etc. So why you are surprised that a moon moving without axial rotation as we see it could be seen to have poles and axial tilt, etc., is beyond me. I think perhaps you might just be unable to visualize the motions involved. If so, there’s very little I can do or say about that to help any further.
You dismiss just about everything I say as “hand-waving” so I don’t take that accusation too seriously from you. In fact I think it’s just you waving your hands. Have your last word.
“Ive explained already, in great detail, numerous times now”
Where?
All you have said is that these are just extra motions, and you make no attempt to explain what’s causing them.
Lame!
“But here is the important fact (for this discussion). The point initially facing Alpha Centauri will *continue* to face Alpha Centauri.”
With either Newton or Einstein, it doesn’t.
Exactly.
Just curious … what would you guys expect to happen for a horse on a merry-go-round that has perfect, frictionless bearings at the top and bottom? The horse is facing forward (let’s assume that is north) on a stopped merry-go round. Then the merry=go-round starts to turn.
Will the horse
1) continue to face north?
2) continue to face “forward” and rotate with the platform below it?
Let me fix that for you …
With either gbaikie’s or DREMT’s understanding of Newton or Einstein, it doesnt.
Study the parallel axis theorem. Study torques caused by gravity on uniform objects
The “initially non-rotating canon ball” has zero “spin” angular momentum about its own axis when launched. Its “orbital” angular momentum about an axis through the barycenter is simply the MR^2. Its total angular momentum is MR^2.
Gravity does not exert a torque on uniform objects in orbits (the basis of Kepler’s 2nd Law). So the total angular momentum stays the same. Since the orbital angular momentum is constant, the ‘spin’ angular momentum is also constant, ie zero ie is maintains a constant orientation.
There are a dozen ways to explain this. I have given several. So far all I have heard from ‘the opposition’ is basically ” Even though I have never studied physics, I am sure that NASA, engineering textbooks and physics professors are all wrong”.
If a ball is spinning and spirally through space the axis is going to be also be traveling through space in a spiral. BOOM! what happened to the idea of having a constant view from space?
The concept of always facing alpha centauri only applies to certain tidally locked objects orbiting around alpha centauri. Everything in the universe is moving and rotating around something else. So in effect is there any such thing as facing one direction in space?
there may be some usefulness for some estimate of that like picking alpha centauri as a reference point because it is believed to be changing so slowly, but its arbitrary and ultimately wrong.
Its fair to call out NASA and physicists when they decide there is such a place but they have no idea where it is. Its merely an arbitrary conceptual idea that isn’t real to physics so why should a physicist or astronaut be the ultimate arbiter of that?
What they are legitimately arbiters of are the methods and procedures for their own profession. The parents of the kid on the MGR have a different zone of responsibilities, if there kid lets go of the handhold and starts spinning to eliminate the spin, the parents should be concerned.
Seems to me making determinations on the say so of experts is not without extreme risk.
Ultimately much of what we think we know is far more the provenance of philosophy and religion, something fairly obviously under rated in modern education. For all those determinists out there believe science and statistics can give the best answer to any question, hopefully it’s a lesson in humility.
Bill says: “For all those determinists out there believe science and statistics can give the best answer to any question, hopefully it’s a lesson in humility.”
But we are addressing a very specific scientific question. Macroscopic objects like moons and cannon balls and train cars and merry-go-rounds move according to well known rules. If I want to figure out how a moon will move, I consult a scientist, not a psychologist or theologian or life coach.
Tim, the cannonball does not need a torque to be applied about its own axis for the bottom to remain oriented towards the Earth. It swings about the Earth like a ball on a string. Zero spin angular momentum, as you say, only orbital angular momentum. The linear momentum acting at right angles to the force of gravity provides a turning motion about the axis through the barycenter. See the animations for the demonstration of that.
Bill ponders “Everything in the universe is moving and rotating around something else. So in effect is there any such thing as facing one direction in space?”
There are independent ways to determine rotations. For example, we know the earth is turning because of how hurricanes rotate. Or watch a foucault pendulum slowing knocking down new pins. This is evidence the earth is rotating.
The idea of “fixed stars’ is only an approximation. A very GOOD approximation, but an approximation none-the-less. Even the fastest star has a proper motion of only 10 arc-seconds per year. To an INCREDIBLY precise degree, we can indeed determine absolute rotations.
“It swings about the Earth like a ball on a string.”
No, it simply does not. A string can apply a torque if the center of the ball is not along the direction of the string. Gravity cannot do this.
And none of the ‘counter=science’ crowd can start to explain an elliptical orbit.
Imagine a moon in a highly eccentric orbit. This moon keep (approximately) the same face toward the earth at all times. At perigee, we can define several points on this moon.
Point E is the point pointing straight toward Earth.
Point F is pointing straight Forward.
How will this moon move?
a) With Point E always facing earth (like a ball on a string)
b) With Point F always facing forward (like a car on a road)
c) neitehr of these (explain your answer)
Bot (a) and (b) have been given as descriptions of the motion, but they give two very different answers. They cannot BOTH be right!
Go ahead DREMT, Gordon, et al — duke it out! What do *you* predict?
So in effect is there any such thing as facing one direction in space?”
Bill, you need to come down to Earth, and maybe stop smoking whatever it is youre smoking so much.
And shocker that DREMT has no problem violating Newton’s Laws for rotation.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill says: “For all those determinists out there believe science and statistics can give the best answer to any question, hopefully it’s a lesson in humility.”
But we are addressing a very specific scientific question. Macroscopic objects like moons and cannon balls and train cars and merry-go-rounds move according to well known rules. If I want to figure out how a moon will move, I consult a scientist, not a psychologist or theologian or life coach. ================================================
Its a nice argument indeed. But it still seems to lack evidence the moon moves like that. The laws of physics you are invoking are for perfectly uniform objects only, idealized situations for which no analogs may exist in the universe.
As Einstein has shown us our laws of physics are good approximations of reality but reality they often are not. Here using your own laws one can conclude that the moon rotates primarily at the command of earth’s gravity just like that chalked circle and the kid on the merry go round that impart a demand for a rotation around the axis of the commanding object.
I tend to think that you are probably a lot better off consulting a philosopher or even a priest over a scientist when seeking answers about perfection.
Tim Folkerts says:
There are independent ways to determine rotations. For example, we know the earth is turning because of how hurricanes rotate. Or watch a foucault pendulum slowing knocking down new pins. This is evidence the earth is rotating.
The idea of “fixed stars’ is only an approximation. A very GOOD approximation, but an approximation none-the-less. Even the fastest star has a proper motion of only 10 arc-seconds per year. To an INCREDIBLY precise degree, we can indeed determine absolute rotations.
==========================
Its hard to figure why you are addressing that to me. Are we saying we should always look to the most stable reference point in the universe to estimate why something is rotating and what it is rotating around?
Tim Folkerts says:
“It swings about the Earth like a ball on a string.”
No, it simply does not. A string can apply a torque if the center of the ball is not along the direction of the string. Gravity cannot do this.
===================================
I think your argument is that gravity can’t do it to perfectly uniform round objects. . . .which may not exist anywhere in the universe. Its rather good proof that gravity can do considering the number of moons just in our solar system that have synchronous orbits.
Tim Folkerts says:
And none of the ‘counter=science’ crowd can start to explain an elliptical orbit.
Imagine a moon in a highly eccentric orbit. This moon keep (approximately) the same face toward the earth at all times. At perigee, we can define several points on this moon.
Point E is the point pointing straight toward Earth.
Point F is pointing straight Forward.
How will this moon move?
a) With Point E always facing earth (like a ball on a string)
b) With Point F always facing forward (like a car on a road)
c) neitehr of these (explain your answer)
Bot (a) and (b) have been given as descriptions of the motion, but they give two very different answers. They cannot BOTH be right!
=========================
The correct answer is it is the perspective of the observer that is changing not the moon.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10836
can anybody imagine an elastic string?
**Tim Folkerts says:
May 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM
Let me fix that for you …
With either gbaikie’s or DREMT’s understanding of Newton or Einstein, it doesnt.
Study the parallel axis theorem. Study torques caused by gravity on uniform objects**
Maybe this will help:
“For example, the Moon’s centre of mass is very close to its geometric centre (it is not exact because the Moon is not a perfect uniform sphere), but its centre of gravity is slightly displaced toward Earth because of the stronger gravitational force on the Moon’s near side.”
**The initially non-rotating canon ball has zero spin angular momentum about its own axis when launched. Its orbital angular momentum about an axis through the barycenter is simply the MR^2. Its total angular momentum is MR^2.**
The barycenter of the cannon would be the center of earth.
The barycenter of Moon is further away from the center of Earth.
Both cannon ball and Moon “spin” around their barycenters.
Or could also call it rotate around their barycenters.
Or orbit these barycenters
But if object spins around it’s center- center of cannon ball or center of moon that would be a different thing.
“But it still seems to lack evidence the moon moves like that. The laws of physics you are invoking are for perfectly uniform objects only, idealized situations for which no analogs may exist in the universe.”
Bill, you are departing completely from facts and common sense here.
Clearly physics has had enormous success in describing the universe, particularly for how the planets move.
How do you even define ‘evidence’?
Tim, a cannonball that has a point on the underside oriented towards the Earth throughout its orbit is rotating about the cannonball/Earth barycenter, and not on its own axis. Maybe that is what is confusing you; you believe the cannonball needs to start rotating on its own axis to move in such a manner, but it does not.
“the cannonball does not need a torque”
Torque, shmork. Its overrated.
Who needs it? Not this crowd.
Now it “is rotating”
But it wasnt when fired out of cannon.
Some magical ‘torque’ that’s not torque made it happen.
Sounds familiar.
So to clarify my earlier comment, Tim: “The linear momentum acting at right angles to the force of gravity provides a torque about the axis through the barycenter. See the animations for the demonstration of that.”
The torque only needs to be applied about the axis going through the barycenter, not about the cannonball’s own axis.
Torque: don’t need it. Whats it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Strike that. We do need it.
Torque: momentum x distance?
Momentum plus force?
?? What the heck is torque??
#2
So to clarify my earlier comment, Tim: “The linear momentum acting at right angles to the force of gravity provides a torque about the axis through the barycenter. See the animations for the demonstration of that.”
The torque only needs to be applied about the axis going through the barycenter, not about the cannonball’s own axis.
Again, this might help:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torque_animation.gif#mw-jump-to-license
Wrong again DREMT, where is the animation.gif rod connecting the cannonball to the earth? Only in your continually confused imagination.
The cannon ball is only curvilinear translating in earthen orbit when it is per DREMT words: “launched forwards from the cannon without spin.” which is Fig. 2(a) in DREMT’s rigid body dynamics link.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473992
“Wrong again DREMT, where is the animation.gif rod connecting the cannonball to the earth?”
Nobody is arguing it is literally connected to the Earth.
Fig. 2(a) shows the rectangle moving about two separate axes. The cannonball is not.
Nate says:
Bill, you are departing completely from facts and common sense here.
Clearly physics has had enormous success in describing the universe, particularly for how the planets move.
How do you even define ‘evidence’?
=======================================
what is going on here is simply a demonstration of how some educated people can become so completely inculcated by their education they actually believe they can extrapolate their belief system into the realm of the mystic.
the moon obviously has a torque being applied to it by earth. this is causing the moon to rotate around the earth with no (remaining) independent spin of its own. yet you are worshipping the tenets of your religion so deeply it allows you to be in denial of that simple fact that can actually be derived from statistical evidence and a study of moons in our solar system
now perhaps you slipped up a bit and traveled down the zero torque avenue to define what a perfect object would do under your system of beliefs, which of course remains a possibility but is completely inapplicable to what the moon is doing and likely in applicable to any moon in the universe as it requires a form of precision completely unknown in the real world. where it gets hairy is when folks start figuring this power they have been inculcated with is sufficient to answer any question.
A little science you believe is sufficient for prediction purposes and we should all listen to our Doctor’s advice.
However, an intelligent person is not going to listen to his Doctors advice when he informs you that there is an unidentified pimple on your foot that may be growing since you never mentioned it previously and thus you should have your foot amputated.
its pretty sad when you can’t recognize the simple fact that gravity does apply to lunar rotation. not much chance at all for you with regards to climate
The second axis in 2(a) is only in DREMT’s imagination.
Ball4 is apparently blind.
Bill 9:17am, if it were true as you write “this is causing the moon to rotate around the earth with no (remaining) independent spin of its own.”
then the moon would just be translating with no spin of its own as shown in Fig. 2(a) in DREMTs rigid body dynamics text. The moon is also rotating on its own axis once per orbit since from earthen view we see only one hemisphere as shown in 2(b) “rotating”. DREMT has succeeded in confusing Bill but not all critical, informed others such as the author to which DREMT linked.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473992
“the moon obviously has a torque being applied to it by earth. this is causing the moon to rotate around the earth with no (remaining) independent spin of its own.”
Please do show us how that torque arises, Bill. Lets stick to the cannon ball for the moment.
“The linear momentum acting at right angles to the force of gravity provides a torque about the axis through the barycenter”
Not what your cartoon physics shows.
Momentum doesnt cause torque. No wonder you’re confused.
Guess again. Or better yet read the chapter that goes with the cartoon.
“DREMT has succeeded in confusing Bill”
Bill thinks for himself. You should try it.
Ball4 says:
then the moon would just be translating with no spin of its own as shown in Fig. 2(a) in DREMTs rigid body dynamics text. The moon is also rotating on its own axis once per orbit since from earthen view we see only one hemisphere as shown in 2(b) “rotating”. DREMT has succeeded in confusing Bill but not all critical, informed others such as the author to which DREMT linked.
====================================================
Its obvious the earth’s gravity controls the face of the moon similar to what is described in figure 2b with point ‘o’ being the earth.
The moons own symbolic axis is there having an appearance of control but really possessing no control.
Nate says:
Please do show us how that torque arises, Bill. Lets stick to the cannon ball for the moment.
==============================
Yeah you would like to stick with the cannonball where no experimental analog exists exposing the substance of the cannonball so you can try to preach your religion.
If I need to explain to you how the earth controls the the face of the moon, and what the evidence of that is, obviously you are in way over your head in this conversation.
“If I need to explain to you how the earth controls the the face of the moon, and what the evidence of that is, obviously you are in way over your head in this conversation.”
The conversation was about a simpler cannonball.
But whether cannonball or Moon you guys fail to offer any support for your claims that “obviously (they) have a torque being applied to (them) by earth. this is causing (them) to rotate around the earth with no (remaining) independent spin of (their) own.”
Obviously you don’t know basic physics well enough to answer my question about how this supposed torque arises.
Hence the hot-air and evasion.
If you dont understand the basics physics of torque and rotation, why do you, just like DREMT, make unsupportable claims about it?
Bill, I see that I may be improperly conflating your’s and DREMTs positions.
The Moon is nonuniform, I agree, hence it has in its history, experienced a relatively small torque from its mass asymmetry as a result.
Relatively small in that it has taken millions of years to make it have a synchronous orbit and rotation.
I don’t agree that the Moon has no residual independent rotation. It clearly does, as its axis of rotation is not aligned with the orbital axis, and its Poles are defined by this axis, and its libration cannot be explained any other way.
DREMTs position is that a uniform cannonball experiences a torque due to Earths gravity that makes it attain a rotation in a single orbit.
You may not agree with that. Do you?
Nate says:
I dont agree that the Moon has no residual independent rotation. It clearly does, as its axis of rotation is not aligned with the orbital axis, and its Poles are defined by this axis, and its libration cannot be explained any other way.
===============================
The moon’s libration is an optical illusion.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10836
Its orbit is eliptical but its rotation is what you measure. If there was a difference in that rotation the moon would not always be facing earth.
============
===========
Nate says:
DREMTs position is that a uniform cannonball experiences a torque due to Earths gravity that makes it attain a rotation in a single orbit.
You may not agree with that. Do you?
=============
I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that there is likely no such thing as a uniform body.
In fact imperfections in the consistency of a planet isn’t even considered as the major mechanism of tidal locking because so little is known about the insides of planets. So instead with your ‘uniform’ cannon ball its going to tidal lock too. the ball will be stretched out of its round shape by the force of gravity providing a lever arm for torque.
The moon is estimated to stretch the crust of the earth by about 1.4 feet as it transits around the earth. That bulge creates a lever to provide torque and thus its believed eventually the earth would become tidal locked to the moon and vice versa. Though guesses suggest that the sun will consume both the earth and the moon as a red giant before that occurs. But in 4 1/2 billion years earth’s day has shortened from about 6 hours to its current 24 something hours. Apparently Pluto is already dually locked with its moon Charon.
Its all highly speculative physics and the experts suggest estimates of this may be off by many orders of magnitude because so many unknown variables.
One interesting variable is as the angular momentum is changed towards a tidal locking the momentum is conserved via a change in the orbit clearly demonstrating with certainty that the independent spin is indeed converted to an orbital rotation in addition to the originating orbital state. Thus independent spin only exists outside of that capture.
“The moons libration is an optical illusion.”
Meaning what? Its not really happening?
It is what is really happening, as seen from Earth.
The motion is complex, yet physics is able to explain essentially all of it.
There are a dozen or so parameters needed to fully describe its orbit.
Among these are AXIAL TILT, AXIAL PRECESSION, EQUATORIAL ROTATION VELOCITY, POLAR COORDINATES.
If, as you guys believe, the Moon has no independent rotation, then these parameters cannot even be defined.
Is it your view that we should accept all the parameters, except those mentioned above, that have no meaning?
“So instead with your ‘uniform’ cannon ball its going to tidal lock too. the ball will be stretched out of its round shape by the force of gravity providing a lever arm for torque.”
So you think solid steel will be stretched much at all by the miniscule gravitational force gradient from its top to its bottom?
Then squishy astronauts on the ISS ought to be stretched a lot more. But only when they are aligned with an Earth radius. Doubtful.
“I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that there is likely no such thing as a uniform body.”
Bill, in order for the cannonball to orbit the Earth CCW whilst remaining oriented towards the same fixed star would require the cannonball to start rotating on its own axis, CW, once per orbit. You should ask them where does the torque come from to make the cannonball start rotating on its own axis!?
Nate says:
“The moons libration is an optical illusion.”
Meaning what? Its not really happening?
It is what is really happening, as seen from Earth.
The motion is complex, yet physics is able to explain essentially all of it.
There are a dozen or so parameters needed to fully describe its orbit.
Among these are AXIAL TILT, AXIAL PRECESSION, EQUATORIAL ROTATION VELOCITY, POLAR COORDINATES.
If, as you guys believe, the Moon has no independent rotation, then these parameters cannot even be defined.
Is it your view that we should accept all the parameters, except those mentioned above, that have no meaning?
======================================
Nate what don’t you understand from the NASA site: “But as the moon makes its elliptical orbit, its velocity varies and alters that synchronicity, causing our perspective of the “light side” to appear at slightly different angles throughout any given month. In short, the moon wobbles. At least, it does to our eyes.”
The only thing changing is our perspective of the moon as it travels in a tilted and eliptical orbit. The eliptical shape of the orbit has us peering a bit at its trailing backside as it goes away from the earth and a a bit at its leading backside when it is coming back closer to us. The tilt in the orbit allows the same kind of variation that allows us to view a small bit of the top backside when below the the top backside when below the eliptic plane and a bit of the bottom backside when above the eliptic plane.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with any independent spin of the moon.
Bill,
DREMT has stated correctly that the Moon, whose orientation to the stars is changing, IS rotating.
Please ask why he thinks a ball whose orientation to the stars is FIXED, is somehow also rotating.
Nate says:
So you think solid steel will be stretched much at all by the miniscule gravitational force gradient from its top to its bottom?
Then squishy astronauts on the ISS ought to be stretched a lot more. But only when they are aligned with an Earth radius. Doubtful.
===================================
In space not “much at all” should be sufficient for tidal locking.
And indeed astronauts get stretched. We are compacted on earth and a 6 foot tall astronaut can gain 2″ in height from a month in space.
—Nate says:
May 20, 2020 at 8:14 AM
Torque: don’t need it. Whats it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Strike that. We do need it.
Torque: momentum x distance?
Momentum plus force?
?? What the heck is torque??—
If cannonball was spinning it would have torque.
With torque in orbit one has artificial gravity.
The strength of gee forces depends upon the rate of spin,
such a revolutions per minute {RPM] and the length of radius.
If you in low earth orbit, you orbit about once every 90 min, and since cannon ball has small radius, if spun at once every 90 mins that would small amount of torque.
But if cannon ball was 100 km in radius and spun once per 90 min, that would be a large amount of torque.
So if had hollow sphere which was 100 km in radius and was spinning on it’s axis at rate of once every 90 mins, it would produce a significant amount of artificial gravity.
Or 100 km radius circle has circumference of about 628.3 km
628.3 / 90 mins is 6.98 km per min or 116.35 m/s {259.69 mph}.
Bill says “in space not ‘much at all’ should be sufficient for tidal locking.”
Without bothering to calculate it, he is certain that it is sufficient.
While assuring us how little physics understsnds about the Moon.
Meanwile evidence of independent rotation in parameters such as Axial Tilt, etc is simple ignored.
Bill,
“The eliptical shape of the orbit has us peering a bit at its trailing backside as it goes away from the earth and a a bit at its leading backside when it is coming back closer to us. The tilt in the orbit allows the same kind of variation that allows us to view a small bit of the top backside when below the the top backside when below the eliptic plane and a bit of the bottom backside when above the eliptic plane.”
This is all true. But it, together with axial tilt of 6.7 degrees, is evidence of independent rotation.
In particular, elliptical shape of its orbit:
When it approaches apogee, it is now moving slowly in its orbit and its orbital angular velocity is reduced.
Meanwhile the Moon is spinning on its own axis, tilted wrt to the orbital axis, at a constant angular velocity, obeying conservation of angular momentum.
Therefore at apogee, its spin rate exceeds its orbit rate, and it exposes the leading portion of the Moons backside to us.
Similarly, at perigee, its spin rate (still constant!) is slower than its orbital rate. Therefore the trailing portion of the Moon’s backside is exposed to us.
To me this is clear evidence that the Moon is rotating on its axis, INDEPENDENTLY of its orbit, at a constant angular velocity.
Nate, all nice points but for the moon its motions are completely controlled by its various orbits. the sun’s gravity also has an influence on the moon. being tidally locked by everything in the universe is going to induce yet another variation on its motion no matter how small.
of real interest though is how independent spin comes to occur when no obvious gravitational force is around to induce it. collisions with other objects would seem to be the most obvious and potentially fill a huge role for climate change both temporary and permanent.
for this debate it seems as if you all independent spin advocates want to elevate your thinking to a physical level where one can imagine a line about how all these forces operate and this imaginary line takes on physical manifestation all its own and then is used to obfuscate the details.
I have more on this later.
gbaikie….the parameters that decide whether a body goes into orbit are the body’s velocity and the distance it is from the body attracting it. If the two are not right, the body will shoot past the attracting body in a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit and never come back or it will spiral into the attracting body.
I think the point made by dremt is that such a body approaching an attracting body that is not rotating will not rotate when captured in an orbit.
I don’t know if the Moon ever did rotate or where it came from. The theory that it originated in the Earth seems highly unlikely. If it did break away due to a cataclysmic explosion, it would not be round and there would be a humungous crater in the Earth where it was ejected. Furthermore, it’s even more unlikely that any cataclysmic force could have ejected the Moon’s mass at such a perfect angle that it would go into orbit.
I think it’s far more likely that the Moon was travelling past from elsewhere and just happened to be going at a velocity conducive to the orbit it now occupies. So, if it was not rotating when captured, it would go into orbit with no rotation and orbit as it does now.
“I dont know if the Moon ever did rotate or where it came from.”
I would assume everything will spin- unless it’s stopped by some force. So there are trillion of space rocks in our solar system and they all spinning. And smallest one can spin the fastest- there are a number of forces which make them spin faster and slower.
And spun to too fast they fly apart or get 1/2 way to flying apart- because ice skater increases spin by bring arms in, and slow spin by having arms out.And lots of space rocks are rubble piles [and they sing when hit by other space rocks].
“The theory that it originated in the Earth seems highly unlikely.”
It’s likely it not as simple as a theory. By roughly a Mars size planet {or dwarf planet} strikes Earth before is was close to being the Earth we know {proto Earth} and Mars size rock hits rock at roughly angle of Moon orbit around, and small portion of Mars rock is ejected into suborbital, orbital and Earth escape trajectories.
When the much smaller dino killer rock hit Earth, it’s pretty certain it eject stuff into escape velocities as well orbital and suborbital trajectories. And since lower velocity, more mass was ejected into suborbital orbits, therefore a lot it crashed back on to Earth. And probably a lot of it only got less than few thousand km from the impact site. Or only reach velocity of 1 to 3 km per second {2000 mph to 6000 mph}.
With impactor it make larger crater, then mass of space rock and with larger impactor you get a central peak formation. Let’s see what say about it:
“The central uplift is not the result of elastic rebound which is a process in which a material with elastic strength attempts to return to its original geometry; rather the uplift is a process in which a material with little or no strength attempts to return to a state of gravitational equilibrium.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_crater
Of course it’s not elastic strength of the material- because with impactors you dealing vaporize material {gases}. But simple terms when space rock pushes Earth, Earth pushes back.Or the space rock not hitting Earth, Earth is also hitting space rock. Or if on the space rock’s “side” it’s minding it’s own business and the big mean Earth rock hit the smaller space rock {and vaporized the poor smaller space rock- ate almost all of the smaller space rock, then big mean Earth spit something into space or could say vomited something into space}. So there is trade of material and Earth gets net positive trade of material. Now theory say Mars rock keep some of core and lost most of it. And possible the mars size planet was big enough to be less of victim.
My sentence: “…and the sun is like just orbiting the Sun. ”
is wrong. Not even sure what was attempting to say with sentence, I guess:
“…and the rock is like just orbiting the Sun”
{now that it’s orbiting Earth instead just orbiting the Sun] if rock was put in same orbit as Moon.
But it’s still a somewhat confusing way to say it.
In simpler way to write it:
First I put rock in orbit with just the Sun, then I put rock in orbit around Earth orbiting the sun, and then both Earth and rock are orbiting the Sun {or course, as side note, both Earth and Moon {or even a rock} are orbiting each other. Or more correctly, orbiting their barycenter. And Sun and Earth {and etc} are orbiting the combined mass of solar system’s barycenter}.
Leaked data suggests China may have 640,000 coronavirus cases, not 80,000. “The virus tracker, compiled by China’s National University of Defense Technology and leaked to Foreign Policy magazine, appears to confirm fears that the nation’s Communist government is hiding the true nature of the outbreak that originated in Wuhan late last year. According to the report, the virus tracker consists of more than 640,000 rows of cases in 230 cities ranging from early February to late April and confirms the location of each infection.”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
US currently has 1,507,773 cases and has been testing at mad rate.
And late april US was as guess, about 1 million.
Demographic of china 60+
Wiki: ” In 2017, in China, the proportion of Chinese citizens above 60 years old obtained 17.3 percent, approximately above 241 million.”
Almost as bad US Florida which is 20%.
It seems unrealistic that China has done better the Florida, but certainly possible China did better than New York. Everyone has done better than New York.
Florida: 91 deaths per million
{but seriously ill is more important- and don’t have that stat.]
China total pop is about 1400 million
1400 times 91 is 127,400 deaths.
Florida has total of 1,965 and I would guess probably add 4000 before end of 2020. {or 220 days is average of 18 per day and that’s far less 1/2 deaths per day currently, I don’t know if could be an increase in 2020 fall to winter. Or 36 per day [very significant less than average for last 10 days] for 110 days and then magically goes to zero for rest of year]
So likewise, China should have about 1 million death in 2020 which would mean less than .5 percent of 60+ dying.
And I think if 60+ gets infected there is 1 percent chance of death, but if only 1/2 of 60+ get infected which not vaguely unreasonable that’s .5 percent of 60+ dying.
So 1 million death in 2020 in China seems like a low estimate.
Now no matter what we do, china could less than 1 million in 2021.
But get treatment which works it could a lot less than 1 million more in 2021.
Or same thing goes for Florida- could less than 6000 deaths for florida in 2021, or with treatments far less than 6000 deaths in 2021
Anyways, as said before, it seems the lockdown globally is finished.
But if include crowded stadiums or normal levels international travel- this “type” of lockdown, it seems quite uncertain we finished with that, yet.
And no where near lifting isolation of elderly- which may not end before end of 2020.
Crowded stadiums and international air travel seem doable before mid summer. Of course if get “cure” or modify current airline travel we stop all lockdown as soon know “cure” works.
gaikie…”Leaked data suggests China may have 640,000 coronavirus cases, not 80,000″.
I have reached a point where I don’t believe anything related to this farce. The farce gained momentum when the UK Royal Society released that modelled pseudo-science about 500,000 deaths in the UK if drastic measures were not taken. That study has come under harsh criticism for its model programming, some claiming they could not produce the same results as the Royal Society claimed. One person claimed that had the programmer worked for his outfit he’d have been fired.
Not to be outdone, Fauci and company at NIAID release their own model studies claiming the US could see over 200,000 deaths. In the same breath, Fauci claimed models are unreliable. In an attempt to save face, they are now deliberately misreporting deaths to make the situation look more like their sci-fi predictions.
It’s so bad that one death being claimed as being due to covid is being disputed by the family. No distinction is made between someone dying of natural causes with covid and someone dying of covid alone. In fact, some deaths are being reported as covid-related when the deceased did not have the virus nor did he/she test positive for it. The death was reported as covid-related simply because the deceased knew someone who was covid positive.
Absolute pseudo-science.
A week ago, I pointed out that US deaths had increased dramatically from 500 two weeks before to about 50,000. That is a highly unlikely exponential growth we have never witnessed in modern times. There is a lot of egg on a lot of faces and massive cover-ups are in place.
–I have reached a point where I don’t believe anything related to this farce.–
Right. That occurred for me quite a long time ago.
And one must expect it in the future.
And very common, in fact don’t know any exception.
Let’s make list of farces:
NASA
UN
WHO has committed war crimes.
Dems are idiotic and evil
Reps are cowards. And stupid.
Libertarians aren’t Libertarians and big fat losers.
Obviously, “global warming”
MSM – puppets of bureaucracies.
Public schools, is day care- and very bad day care.
Etc.
And only interesting is what is not a farce.
And do you believe in anything.
Because if you got something, I will give it a whirl.
gbaikie…”And do you believe in anything”.
Nope. Beliefs are a waste of energy. All a belief claims is the notion that something is true but the person cannot prove it.
I like your list of farces.
gbaikie says:
I have reached a point where I don’t believe anything related to this farce.
Right. That occurred for me quite a long time ago.
And one must expect it in the future.
======================================
nice list of farces. though i would take exception with one.
MSM puppets of bureaucracies.
MSM is like everybody else looking out for their own self interest and what they leave for their children.
by far the fastest growth sector for msm has been through trade deals that primarily focus on protecting the labors of the elite class and their up and comers through copyright protectionism.
can anybody say deals that win elections that do so little for the voters? its only the most powerful of the special interests.
Rather than puppets, perhaps I should have said zombies.
The fourth estate used to mean something, as in:
“the press; the profession of journalism.”
Pin pointing the time of death, is problematic as it could be argued that it was never really living and it’s a matter when did they cease pretending they were living.
Sort of like NASA, one really can’t point to time, it was doing job of exploring space. As can be asked was there ever “really” a fourth estate?
But does appears to be ever increasing farce- not “improving”.
Similar to clowns evolving into idiotic demonic pathetic puppets.
But it seems if corporations/bureaucracies are controlling
the clowns, it’s the only evolutionary end state.
But history and “Art” tells us, this is not vaguely new. So I try not to worry about it- too much.
It’s not matter of worry. I guess, just more than merely curious if it can be or when, it “magically” transforms, again.
So not a worry, more a matter of faith.
bill…”can anybody say deals that win elections that do so little for the voters? its only the most powerful of the special interests”.
I was thinking something similar the other day. I live in Canada, and I don’t recall half the legislation being passed being talked about before an election. For example, the father of the current Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, introduced the concept of multiculturalism without consulting any voters. He simply opened our borders to anyone from Third World countries while cutting off our usual immigration routes from Europe.
I don’t think Trudeau did that because he was a compassionate person. It was a means to an end. Our politicians have always been prostitutes who sell off our resources dirt cheap without making an effort to create a home industry for developing the resources. Furthermore, they try to get investors to prop up our economy while looking for wealthy immigrants to bring their money. The poor immigrants serve to undercut the wages of the working class due to their desperation.
I am not a racist by nature but it is ingenuous to open one’s borders to countries where the cultural and traditional values of those countries seriously conflict with our own idea of democracy. The son, Justin Trudeau, is now calling Canadians names like Islamophobes when they object to the practices of such people that directly contradict our democratic constitution and tradition. Rather than staunchly defend our democracy, he kisses butt for votes.
We no longer have democracies, what we have is politically-correct idiots imposing their warped values on the rest of us. Individuality is discouraged while group-think is the new way. None of the values to which they aspire has ever been put to a vote. That’s especially true with this covid nonsense where unelected health officials are dictating policy based on unvalidated models and unproved theories.
The only thing what matters in this hopeless discussion concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis is that all the people responsible for Moon landing area computations did it right in the past and will do so in the future.
It is amazing to see how all these ignorant Pseudoskeptics continue to doubt about this rotation despite being explained by Chang’e 4 manpower – describing a landing even on the far side! – that it is a fact the project had to take into account.
J.-P. D.
Today I have some idle time, and after half an hour of rather hard work, I found a document exactly reflecting what I was searching for:
Apollo lunar landing launch window: The controlling factors and constraints
Robin Wheeler (NASA / Apollo), 2009
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
In the description of the Lunar orbit phase, we can read:
” The moon’s relatively slow rotation rate, combined with the reasonably low lunar orbit inclinations, result in a small out-of-plane motion of the lunar landing site. The LOI maneuver is planned so that the resulting lunar orbit plane contains the planned landing site at the nominal landing time, as illustrated in figure 23.
Position 1 represents the location of the landing site at the time of lunar orbit insertion. When the LM makes the landing, the landing site has rotated to position 2. ”
*
Of course 1: I anticipate that the Pseudoskeptic geniuses will tell us
” No, no! In the document, they mean Moon’s rotation around Earth! ”
But … the picture below is 100% clear and unambiguous:
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%2023%20sml.png
This perfectly confirms that people responsible for the landing of Lunar Modules have to and DO take Moon’s rotation about its axis into account.
*
Of course 2: this certainly won’t impress the Pseudoskeptics!
It’s after all a NASA document, i.e. per se untrustworthy, that’s evident.
They will continue to tell us Tesla is right, and present their magnificent toy ‘proofs’ using coins, racehorses and other coffee or tea cups. Let them do!
But for me, ‘case definitely closed’. It was anyway since longer time, thanks to Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace etc!
J.-P. D.
I see I forgot to mention the most important point:
” During the lunar surface stay, the landing site continues to rotate out-of-plane of the CSM to position 3.
An orbital plane change maneuver was carried out by the CSM using the SPS, prior the the LM ascent from the lunar surface.
This puts the CSM in a new orbit plane which will pass over the landing site at the nominal lunar launch time. ”
That’s evident: with 4.6 m/s, and a stay of e.g. 2 hours means a displacement of 33 km. Not the difference in the ascent’s trajectory as such is the problem, but rather… the extra LM fuel which would have been needed to.
binny…”The moons relatively slow rotation rate…”
They are not using rotation in the same sense you mean it. From a spacecraft approaching the Moon. it would appear to turn, but the turning is not about a local axis, it’s due to the Moon’s angular momentum in its orbit.
If a spacecraft went into orbit around the Earth, just outside the Moon’s orbit, it would always see the same face of the Moon. If the Moon was turning on a local axis, the spacecraft would see every side of the Moon.
It appears as if NASA and other luminaries are confused by this illusion.
NASA uses the term ‘axis’ but only in reference to earth. On the moon they confine the statement to rotation. the only issue is what the moon rotates around. All the obfuscation of libration, perspective, and just the word rotation doesn’t mean the moon rotates on its axis. The moon rotates on its axis crowd wants so badly to prove their point they have everything in the universe rotating on its axis, making it an entirely moot point. Fact is objects do rotate around something. All of us rotate around the earths axis. From space (assuming one can look through the earth and we stand still) we appear to be rotating on our axes. The solar system rotates around the galaxy just that the orbital period is so long we don’t live long enough to see it. But our moon rotates around its axis crowd here are going to give the moon an extra turn on its axis for it no doubt.
B Hunter wrote:
Of course, rotation must be defined relative to some coordinate system. In physics, such as that used to build spacecraft (and ballistic missiles), an inertial reference frame is the required coordinate system. That’s why these guidance systems use gyros to control orientation, the gyros (ideally) point in fixed directions in inertial coordinates. Rotation of the body can thus be measured and be compared with the desired orientation.
For the Moon, an approximate inertial coordinate system can be found using the orbital parameters, such as the semimajor axis of the ellipse and the plane of the orbit, which defines 2 of the 3 orthogonal axes. I used the work “approximate” because the Moon’s orbit’s precession changes the direction of the major axis with a period of about 18.6 years. In that coordinate system, the Moon rotates once every orbit and it’s axis of rotation is also defined relative to that system.
From the inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter (revolving) and not rotating on its own axis. The particles making up the moon move in concentric circles (or ellipses, more precisely) about the barycenter. The paths the particles follow do not cross, as they would if axial rotation were present. See:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473682
and following comments.
But the particles on the far side of the moon move faster than the particles on the near side, as they make bigger ellipses, and to prevent the moon from tearing itself apart, the moon spins on its own axis.
“But the particles on the far side of the moon move faster than the particles on the near side”
Yes, because the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter (revolving), and not on its own axis.
DREMT continually misses that the circles are not concentric, the lines cross, unless the moon rotates once on its axis per orbit for concentric circles found in the lab. DREMT just skipped the lab course again. Nothing new.
No, it is revolving around the earth-moon barycenter and rotating on its own axis.
You should stop saying rotate when you mean revolve, or study some astronomy like Keplers Laws, or Cassini’s Laws, but you are too stupid for school.
This is Cassini’s first law:
The Moon has a 1:1 spin–orbit resonance. This means that the rotation–orbit ratio of the Moon is such that the same side of it always faces the Earth.
Do you understand that the 1:1 spin-orbit ratio means the moon orbits with the same frequency that it rotates on its own axis.
Don’t bother answering, I know the answer is no.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
“…the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles”
As you can see from Fig 2(b), axial rotation of the plate is rendered impossible by the rod, and the plate and rod are revolving about point O. Concentric circles, blob and Ball4. The paths do not cross.
Now you have it right DREMT, welcome in from wandering in the darkness. Try to stick with what you have learned in your own link. The paths do not cross when the plate (or e.g. the moon) rotates once on its own axis per orbit of point O.
Face A1 to B1, same as face A2 to B2, faces toward point O all during the plate orbit of O just like the hemisphere of the moon would if painted on the plate in 2 (b). Thus moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of earth.
I doubt this will register with DREMT though until he gets to the lab course.
“The paths do not cross when the plate (or e.g. the moon) rotates once on its own axis per orbit of point O.”
The plate is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis, due to the rod connecting it to point O.
Damn, you correctly cited something
“the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation”
So that plate is rotating, like the moon.
Well done
The plate is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis.
The axis the plate is rotating around is the pin through which the plate is attached, perpendicular to the plate.
And yes this axis is the plates own axis.
No, the plates own axis goes through the plate’s center of mass. The plate is not rotating about that axis, it is rotating about point O.
DREMT, the plate in 2(a) is the one not rotating on its own axis.
Stick with plate orbiting O in 2(b) when you want to correctly discuss rotational motion on a body’s own axis as it’s the one labeled: (b) Rotation.
DREMT can’t understand his own linked material. Nothing new.
Neither 2(a) nor 2(b) is rotating on its own axis. 2(b) is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis (which passes through the center of mass of the plate).
DREMT, the author states by definition: “the axis of rotation intersects the rigid body”. The axis through O does not intersect the plate rigid body so it cannot be the rigid plate rotational axis. The axis through O (for the earth/moon O is the barycenter) & is commonly called the orbital axis (or external axis), the axis that does intersect the rigid plate, as the author states, is commonly called its rotational axis (or internal axis).
The square plate in 2(b) is orbiting the external axis thru O and rotating once about its own internal axis of rotation per orbit.
The square plate in 2(a) is not rotating, it is only translating & shows all faces to the center axis of its orbit unlike the moon. So the moon is not just translating & not rotating as you ceaselessly incorrectly claim.
I know DREMT will nevah! keep this straight but it’s fun to point out DREMT errors for other readers.
For practice, what axis is the 2(a) plate orbiting? An lab working example would be the Hubble telescope fixed gaze on a distant star for several earth orbits.
DREMT,
In 2b draw your polar coordinate system such that radius r=0 is right in the center of the rectangle and angle a=0 is pointed straight ahead. Do not reorient that reference frame between timesteps, but do allow it to translate with the rectangle. That is a rotationally inertial reference frame because the angle a=0 is allows pointed at the same distant point. Point B at t=1 has a=45. At t=2 it is more like a=30. The only way for the angle to change between t=1 and t=2 is if the rectangle has angular velocity. Therefore the rectangle in 2b is rotating. That’s just the way the math works out.
Yes bdgwx, more precisley therefore the rectangle in 2b is rotating on an axis intersecting itself in 2(b). Thus 2(b) plate is rotating on that rectangle’s own axis once per orbit of O. This complies explicity with the author’s definition of rotational axis intersecting the body.
“…therefore the rectangle in 2b is rotating”
I agree, it is rotating, bdgwx, the question is: which axis is it rotating about? Is the rectangle rotating about an axis passing through its center of mass? No. Is the rectangle rotating (revolving, orbiting) about point O? Yes.
DREMT,
I defined the axis. Using polar coordinates it is radius r=0 fixed at the center of the rectangle’s mass and angle a=0 pointed up. The point r=0 is the rectangle’s own axis. The points A,B,C,D are changing angles wrt to that reference frame. That reference frame is inertial. Therefore the rectangle is rotating on its own axis.
Yes. The rectangle is orbiting/revolving around point O in addition to rotating on its own axis.
So now we can address the fact that the moon rotates around its own center of mass.
And that the moon revolves around the earth-moon barycenter.
Ahh, enlightenment at last, free at last, free at last.
bdgwx, it is physically impossible for the rectangle to rotate on its own axis due to it being held in place by the rod attaching it to point O. Therefore axial rotation in addition to orbital motion cannot be occurring. If it is physically impossible for something to happen, it does not happen.
It is not physically possible for the rectangle to change orientation wrt to its direction of motion because of the connecting rod.
But it is clearly physically possible for the rectangle to change orientation wrt to its surroundings.
Axial rotation is defined wrt to an inertial reference frame or surroundings.
It is obviously physically possible for the Moon to both revolve around the Earth and rotate around its own axis.
“It is obviously physically possible for the Moon to both revolve around the Earth and rotate around its own axis.”
Yes. Concentrate on the rectangle for now, though. The rectangle cannot physically rotate on its own axis (center of mass).
“But it is clearly physically possible for the rectangle to change orientation wrt to its surroundings”
Which means only that the rectangle is rotating (orbiting) about point O, and not about the axis passing through its center of mass – about which it cannot rotate, due to the presence of the rod connecting it to point O. Remember the chalk circle drawn on the edge of the merry-go-round…
bobd…”But the particles on the far side of the moon move faster than the particles on the near side”
True, but the angular velocity is the measure of a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon, not the individual particle velocity. It’s the same on Earth. Particles on the surface at the Equator move faster than particles at the poles but all particles complete one rotation in the same time.
If you apply that to the Earth by drawing a radial line from its axis to each line of latitude at the surface on the Greenwich Meridian (0 degrees longitude), the velocity at each point on each radial line will vary from the axis to the surface. However, each one of those radial lines will complete one rotation in the same time. The latter is what is meant by angular velocity on a rigid body.
That’s due to the property of a rigid body, you must determine it’s angular velocity from a radial line drawn through its centre of gravity from an exterior axis. If you visualize that condition, a radial line anchored at the Earth’s centre and extending through the Moon, all points on that line through the Moon are moving in circles about the Earth’s centre.
That includes the Moon’s axis if taken perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane. Therefore a point on that radial line at the near face can never move around the axis while the near face is tidally-locked so as to always point inwardly. .
Gordon, except that I wasn’t talking about the particles angular velocity, I was talking about normal velocity.
A difference in angular velocity will not cause a body to come apart, but a difference in normal velocity will, but if the body is rotating, then it won’t come apart.
So just like Cassini said, the moon is rotating at the same speed that it is revolving.
blob claims to understand the “Non-Spinner” position, then writes this comment demonstrating that he doesn’t. He most likely never will.
Chalk circle, blob.
DREMPTY,
Chalk circle?
Here you go
The instantaneous angular velocity of any point on the chalk circle is the same as the instantaneous angular velocity of the merry-go-round.
Same for the piece of chalk sitting on the edge of the merry-go-round. The piece of chalk is rotating around the center of the merry-go-round, not on its own axis.
See, you are getting there now.
DREMT,
Color one half of your piece of chalk blue and the other red. You will then notice that the piece of chalk is changing orientation wrt to its surroundings.
Yes, because it is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
bdgwx, DREMT English writes “rotating” in place of orbiting and “reorienting” in place of “rotating on its own axis”. Per DREMT instructions, you have to translate from the DREMT’s English. Not difficult, is it? Queen’s English is foreign language to DREMT.
Here is the 7:39am DREMT English translated into Queen’s English:
Yes, because it is orbiting about the center of the merry-go-round, and rotating on its own axis.
Once the misrepresentations set in, you know it is game over for them.
bdgwx, DREMT is wrong because there is no misrepresentation, just have to follow DREMT’s own comments since in Queen’s English orbiting and revolving both mean “move in a circle on a central axis” so equivalently translating from DREMT English not difficult, is it?…
Yes, because it is revolving about the center of the merry-go-round, and rotating on its own axis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474075
the merry go round is real and for all practical points of view not moving around. whereas an axis is a conceptual object that is moved to where ever it needs to be. this is fundamental cause and effect. the difference in the real practical world of the ordinary man being badgered by those inculcated on an idea of God science that wants the dog’s tail to wag the world.
you define the moon as rotating on its axis. i would argue thats about as meaningless as you can get because like the concept of barycenters there is a near infinite number of them some more dominate than others but unlimited in number. so like we say the moon orbits around the earth with no independent spin of its own thats plenty practical for most purposes until one wants to try arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
DREMT,
If you arbitrarily pick the merry-go-round’s reference frame you are describing the motion or orbit of the chalk; not its orientation or rotation. Orientation or rotation is always wrt to its own axis and its surroundings.
Your problem right now is that you are trying to redefine orientation and rotation as being something other than what everyone else has already agreed to in the context of astronomical bodies.
That’s fine if you want to discuss a different perspective but you’re going to need to come up with another word for what you think the chalk piece and the Moon are doing in the non-inertial reference frame that you are desperately clinging to.
So, Ball4, the contents of a chalk circle drawn on a merry-go-round are rotating about an axis going through their center, as well as revolving about the center of the merry-go-round, are they?
“so like we say the moon orbits around the earth with no independent spin of its own”
Again Bill, thats incorrect rigid body dynamics, you have been misled. Translating only (thus no spin) is Fig. 2(a) and the moon is observed to follow 2(b) “rotating”.
bdgwx…yes, it is a different perspective. Yes, “revolution” is defined a certain way by astronomy. It is not defined as rotation about a barycenter. It should be. Rotation about a barycenter is motion like the moon, where the same face of the object always faces towards the barycenter. Axial rotation is then separate and independent of this motion.
I do not cling to a non-inertial reference at all. I have been using the inertial reference frame throughout. One with the barycenter at the center.
bill said: you define the moon as rotating on its axis. i would argue thats about as meaningless as you can get
Yeah. I’m definitely getting the vibe that there are few things in science you find meaningful. And by your own words it seems as though there are few things are convinced of. I’m honestly not sure I could convince you that 1+1=2 is a true statement at this point so convincing you that the Moon does, in fact, have a non-zero sidereal angular velocity is probably hopeless. I accept that.
bill said: because like the concept of barycenters there is a near infinite number of them some more dominate than others but unlimited in number
You’re right. There are an infinite number of inertial reference frames we could use. We have fix the radius r=0 to the center of mass of the Moon. If we don’t then we aren’t discussing rotation. But we can fix the angle a=0 onto any point in the cosmic microwave background. There are an infinite number of ways we can orient our reference frame. But…here’s the catch…no matter which one you pick the sidereal angular velocity of the Moon is always exactly the same and non-zero.
I don’t know…if there are an infinite number of ways of doing something and all of them give you the exact same answer that’s pretty convincing in my book. I’m guessing you remain unconvinced though right?
DREMT 9;489am meaning after translating per DREMT instructions:
So, Ball4, the contents of a chalk circle drawn on a merry-go-round are revolving about an axis going through their center, as well as revolving about the center of the merry-go-round, are they?
No. The contents of a chalk circle drawn on a spinning merry-go-round are moving in rigid body dynamics as per DREMT linked Fig. 2(b) “rotating”.
I am glad we finally agree.
Oops, DREMT 9:54am…
DREMT said: I have been using the inertial reference frame throughout. One with the barycenter at the center.
That still doesn’t work.
For that reference frame to be inertial it must be pointed toward a distant point like a star or feature on the CMB.
When you use that reference frame all points on the Moon have an angular velocity of 0.23 rads/day. Aside from the fact that this is the orbital angular velocity and not sidereal angular velocity it is still non-zero. So that argument doesn’t work either way.
I think the reference frame you are using is the one where radius r=0 is through the center of Mass of the Moon and angle a=0 is fixed to the motion vector. When you use that reference frame the angular velocity is indeed 0 rads/day. But that is a non-inertial reference frame since it is itself rotating.
Ya know…scientists often refer to that reference frame that tracks parcel motions as a flow following frame. And scientists often refer to these flow following frames as the Lagrangrian perspective. What about calling what the Moon does as Lagrangian motion?
“When you use that reference frame all points on the Moon have an angular velocity of 0.23 rads/day. Aside from the fact that this is the orbital angular velocity and not sidereal angular velocity it is still non-zero.”
Of course. I am not arguing that the orbital angular velocity is non-zero. You still do not get it, do you?
“I think the reference frame you are using is the one where radius r=0 is through the center of Mass of the Moon and angle a=0 is fixed to the motion vector. When you use that reference frame the angular velocity is indeed 0 rads/day. But that is a non-inertial reference frame since it is itself rotating.”
Wrong, I am not using that reference frame.
ball4 said: bdgwx, DREMT English writes rotating in place of orbiting and reorienting in place of rotating on its own axis. Per DREMT instructions, you have to translate from the DREMTs English. Not difficult, is it? Queens English is foreign language to DREMT.
For DREMT…I think you’re right. I think the biggest issue is that he uses different definitions for words and phrases from everyone else. But there is also some confusion with reference frames it seems.
For bill…I’m not sure yet what the issue is yet. It almost seems like he doesn’t think rotation is even a thing.
Should have said, “Of course. I am not arguing that the orbital angular velocity is zero. You still do not get it, do you?”
DREMT said: Wrong, I am not using that reference frame.
Ok. Then tell us exactly where you placing and orienting your polar coordinate system (r,a). Tell us exactly where radius r=0 is fixed to and tell us exactly where angle a=0 is pointed towards. Then we’ll just compute the angular velocity and see if it is non-zero. Fair enough?
I repeat:
I am not arguing that the orbital angular velocity is zero.
The moon is orbiting. It is not rotating on its own axis.
DREMT said: It is not rotating on its own axis.
Kindly provide the details of the reference frame you want me to use and I’ll compute the angular velocity wrt to it and we’ll see what happens.
All I need is..
– the position of the radius r=0 value.
– the direction in which the angle a=0 is pointing towards.
I already told you the reference frame is centered at the barycenter. a=0 is oriented at a fixed star. Yes, there will be orbital angular velocity.
Perfect. We agree on orbital angular velocity. Now what about rotational or sidereal angular velocity. Where are you putting your reference frame?
Same place.
Would you put your inertial reference frame through the center of the chalk circle, with a=0 pointed at a fixed star? Because if you do that you would conclude that the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis, as the merry-go-round rotates. You would have to conclude that the chalk circle has spun angular velocity. That would be wrong.
spin angular velocity, not spun…
DREMT said: Same place.
Meaning the Earth-Moon barycenter right?
DREMT said: The moon is orbiting. It is not rotating on its own axis.
See the problem? You are trying to make a statement about the Moon not rotating on its own axis by choosing an axis through something else. How does that even make any sense?
My only conclusion here is that in you mind “on its own axis” actually means “on the Earth-Moon barycenter axis”.
Furthermore…even if you did erroneously choose the Earth-Moon barycenter as your axis of choice all of the points on the Moon still have non-zero angular velocity wrt to that reference frame.
You still haven’t even identified an inertial reference frame in which W = 0 rads/day regardless of whether it is the Moon’s own axis some other axis.
bdgwx avoids the chalk circle, yet again…
My response is the same for the piece of chalk as well.
Chalk circle, bdgwx. ClintR understood the simple example, why cant you?
And, just to be clear “on its own axis” refers to the line passing through the moon’s center of mass.
Ball4 says:
so like we say the moon orbits around the earth with no independent spin of its own
Again Bill, thats incorrect rigid body dynamics, you have been misled. Translating only (thus no spin) is Fig. 2(a) and the moon is observed to follow 2(b) rotating.
===============================================
No its your mistake when you translated ‘no independent spin’ into ‘no spin’. Yes it has a spin around the earth/moon barycenter. It has many other spins as well, none of which are independent.
Stating the moon spins around its own axis is simply a denial of information readily available.
I would think you would only want to specify that when its a mystery as to why the object is spinning. Like for the earth why does it spin independently. Its an interesting puzzle. But there is no apparent fossil signature of a long ago event of an object like the moon which has lost any signature undiagnosed spin it may have possessed in the past. so why go down the road of denial it rotating around earthly forces and pretending it has a unique spin? And certainly for other purposes than its rotation around earth the concept of an axis has applicability to the availability of light on various parts of its surface. But only lordy knows why you want to make it the dominant feature of everything. Smacks of worship.
DREMT,
The chalk circle itself has no motion. It is not translating nor rotating wrt to its surroundings. All it is are a bunch of calcite particles that got pulled off the chalk piece via friction as the chalk piece both orbits and rotates.
If you want to stick to the chalk analogy then you need to focus on the piece of chalk. The Moon does not deposit particles of its mass onto any surface via friction or otherwise while it both orbits and rotates.
If ClintR thinks the calcite particles are in motion wrt to their surroundings after they’ve been deposited then he doesn’t understand the motions that are involved.
Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying the chalk circle isn’t useful in trying to understand the piece of chalk’s motion. It is useful because it provides a tracer of where those calcite particle were. You can then use that information to demonstrate how the piece of chalk was moving and how it was oriented at different times and what it’s orbital angular velocity and rotational angular velocity was.
bill said: Stating the moon spins around its own axis is simply a denial of information readily available.
Well bill when I plot the (r,a) values of points on the surface of the Moon where radius r=0 is fixed to the center of mass of the Moon and angle a=0 is pointed towards a distant object like a star or feature on the CMB I get 0.23 rads/day as the angular velocity.
So I don’t know what your definition of “spins around its own axis” is but I know for certain it’s not the same as how scientists define it otherwise you would get 0.23 rads/day as well.
So tell us…what is your definition of “spins around its own axis”? What reference frame are you using to define it? Kindly tell us where you are putting your radius r=0 and angle a=0 points for your coordinate system.
“The chalk circle itself has no motion”
You are deranged. The chalk circle is drawn onto the merry-go-round. It’s finished. It’s drawn. The piece of chalk is thrown away. So, as the merry-go-round rotates, the chalk circle is moving wrt to the fixed surroundings. It’s definitely in motion, because the merry-go-round is in motion. But it (the atoms comprising the piece of merry-go-round within the circle) is not rotating about an axis through the center of the chalk circle. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. You keep going out of your way to miss the point.
Here is the sequence of events, bdgwx:
1) The merry-go-round is stationary.
2) Somebody draws a circle, in chalk, towards the edge of the merry-go-round.
3) They throw the piece of chalk away.
4) The merry-go-round starts moving.
5) We now start considering the motion of the chalk circle.
Here is some more information about the chalk circle:
1) its diameter is 10cm.
2) the diameter of the merry-go-round is 2m.
3) it is drawn on 10cm away from the edge of the merry-go-round.
Does that help?
Bill 2:17pm, DREMT has confused you, there is no mistake the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit as shown in Fig. 2(b).
Ah…so the chalk circle is on the merry-go-around; not on the surroundings. I got it!
I see two ways to analyze this…
First…the entirety of the chalk circle is our body in question. It happens to be spread out in a ring instead of a sphere. Because it is a ring it’s center of mass just happens to be the same as the center of mass of the merry-go-round. So in this specific case the merry-go-round’s own axis is the same as the chalk circle’s own axis. They can both share the same reference frame. The chalk circle is definitely changing its orientation in this reference frame. It has angular velocity and it is rotating. However, this is not equivalent to the Moon which is actually a sphere that is offset from the body it is orbiting. It’s center of mass is not the same as the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system. So this interpretation is not analogous to the situation we have with the Moon.
Second…we can examine a specific part of the chalk circle. Let’s say we focus on a specific 1cm x 1cm square piece. The center of mass of this piece is not the same as the center of mass of the merry-go-round in this case. Regardless when you measure the angular velocity of this 1cm x 1cm square center on its own axis you still get a non-zero value. That part of the chalk is therefore still rotating. This is the case for any part of the chalk circle you want to analyze regardless of its size. This interpreation is most analogous to the situation we have with the Moon. And yet we still measure a non-zero angular velocity and deduce that the 1cm x 1cm square is rotating in this case.
Bill 2:17pm, there is night and day at the Apollo sites, i.e. sun rise and sun set so there is no doubt the moon rotates on its own axis.
Bill 2:17pm, DREMT is placing his ref. frame same as does the text book since DREMT agreed with text book at 10:18am.
DREMT,
Ah…the chalk circle is drawn on the merry-go-around before hand. I got it.
The chalk circle as a whole is definitely changing orientation on its own axis.
Likewise, individual sections on the chalk circle are also changing orientation on their own axis as well.
Do you want to focus on the chalk circle as a whole?
Do you want to focus on a specific section of the chalk circle?
If the former then understand that this is not like the arrangement we have with the Moon because the Moon is not a ring spread around the Earth-Moon barycenter. It is a cohesive sphere.
If the later then understand that those specific sections are both orbiting with the merry-go-around and rotating on their axis.
bdgwx, when commenters discuss moon “rotation” with DREMT, commenters must realize DREMT has agreed moon motion is per the text book rigid body dynamics shown Fig. 2(b) “rotation”. Just ignore DREMT’s imprecise and incorrect comment wording, switching ref. frames without written notice, and applying imaginary torques to write things spin up.
Just look at fig. 2(b) rotation for your answers.
bdgwx says:
bill said: you define the moon as rotating on its axis. i would argue thats about as meaningless as you can get
Yeah. I’m definitely getting the vibe that there are few things in science you find meaningful. And by your own words it seems as though there are few things are convinced of. I’m honestly not sure I could convince you that 1+1=2 is a true statement at this point so convincing you that the Moon does, in fact, have a non-zero sidereal angular velocity is probably hopeless. I accept that.
=============================================
LOL! You might be right. I don’t see why I should consider anything in pure science as prima facie meaningful.
Its kind of like calling mathematics meaningful. It can have a form of meaning through what its purported to represent.
Thats why when you asked me to prove that that the angular velocity of the independent spin of the moon was 0rads/day I responded if you can prove that the orbital angular velocity of the moon was 0rads/day I would use your proof to prove what you wanted me to prove. I can do that because its identical. If a planet is spinning and traveling in a straight line we still calculate its angular momentum but our ignorance of why its spinning would make that information less meaningful than when we do know the source of it.
Science is the search for meaning. Where it jumps the tracks is when folks start assuming it has inherent meaning.
bill said: because like the concept of barycenters there is a near infinite number of them some more dominate than others but unlimited in number
You’re right. There are an infinite number of inertial reference frames we could use. We have fix the radius r=0 to the center of mass of the Moon. If we don’t then we aren’t discussing rotation. But we can fix the angle a=0 onto any point in the cosmic microwave background. There are an infinite number of ways we can orient our reference frame. But…here’s the catch…no matter which one you pick the sidereal angular velocity of the Moon is always exactly the same and non-zero.
I don’t know…if there are an infinite number of ways of doing something and all of them give you the exact same answer that’s pretty convincing in my book. I’m guessing you remain unconvinced though right?
==================================
I would tend to pick the most meaningful reference frame and go with that and not argue science for the sake of arguing science when you have no way of winning that argument.
bdgwx: please read from back here, all the way through:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473666
And bdgwx, note that the center of the chalk circle is not in the center of the merry-go-round. The centre of the chalk circle is offset, it is nearer to the edge of the merry-go-round.
bdgwx says:
So tell uswhat is your definition of spins around its own axis? What reference frame are you using to define it? Kindly tell us where you are putting your radius r=0 and angle a=0 points for your coordinate system.
==================================
The same bdgwx. Isn’t angular velocity a psuedovector? Provide a mirror image of it and nothing changes.
bill said: The same bdgwx.
For “spin on its own axis” we set our coordinates such that radius r=0 is through the body’s center of mass and set angle a=0 such that it always oriented towards a distant point. The angular velocity in that reference frame quantifies spin or rotation.
Note, this is not my definition. This is the definition astronomers have adopted and they all comply with it. It is not controversial.
Your turn…how do you define “spin on its own axis”.
bill said: Isnt angular velocity a psuedovector?
Yes.
bill said: Provide a mirror image of it and nothing changes.
Correct. What this means is that if you do a rotation or a reflection of the Moon its angular velocity in the sidereal frame (which I defined above) will still be +0.23 rads/sec. Because angular velocity is a psuedovector it is +0.23 and not -0.23 like would be the case if it were a polarvector. Ultimately this is completely moot to our discussion of the Moon’s rotation since 1) no body is suggesting we reflect the Moon and 2) the angular velocity ends up being the same regardless.
bdgwx says:
bill said: The same bdgwx.
For spin on its own axis we set our coordinates such that radius r=0 is through the bodys center of mass and set angle a=0 such that it always oriented towards a distant point. The angular velocity in that reference frame quantifies spin or rotation.
Note, this is not my definition. This is the definition astronomers have adopted and they all comply with it. It is not controversial.
Your turnhow do you define spin on its own axis.
Where all the individual particles of the object that are not dissected by a central axis are moving considerably faster than the axis and move even faster the further from the axis the particle is.
that may not be a complete definition but a necessary part of one.
Jesus! What is that for a pair of dumb, stubborn comments!
You see one more time: instead of scientifically disproving what they doubt about, let alone to provide for a scientific proof of their ideas, Pseudoskeptics can’t manage to do anything else than to guess, to pretend, to discredit, to denigrate all what does not fit into their egocentric narrative.
Again: the figure below
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%2023.png
clearly shows that due to Moon’s rotation about its axis, the orbiting vehicle had to perform an orbital plane change maneuver, prior to the LM ascent from the lunar surface.
The reason for the maneuver is evident: to save propellant in the Moon landing vehicle by letting the orbiting vehicle change its orbiting plane such that the Moon lander would have the same minimal trajectory for relaunching as it had when landing.
If the Moon was not rotating about its axis, but would only do about the Earth-Moon barycentre, no such maneuver would have been needed at all, because viewed from the orbiting vehicle, the landing point and the relaunching point would have kept identical wrt its reference frame.
But that was not the case:
” During the lunar surface stay, the landing site continues to rotate out-of-plane of the CSM to position 3. ”
Is that sooo complicated to grasp?
J.-P. D.
Since nobody is denying the moon is moving around in a big ellipse, one wonders what your point is.
Pseudomod
” … one wonders what your point is. ”
And I’m wondering why people like you can’t manage to understand such simple matter.
No matter how a celestial body B2 orbits around another body B1: if B2 does not rotate about its axis, a vehicle B3 orbiting around B2 without changing its orbiting plane will always pass over the same points over B2’s surface.
*
Suppose Earth would not rotate about its axis while orbiting around the Sun. How would then, in your mind, Moon’s trajectory behave?
Would, upon each revolution, the Moon pass over Earth exactly at the same places, or would it not?
If you can’t answer the question properly, I don’t see any reason for further communication. That makes no sense.
J.-P. D.
Nobody is arguing that the moon moves in any way other than it is observed to move. As it orbits, the moon changes orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. The moon keeps the same face towards Earth as it orbits. Nobody is denying that.
DREMT said: As it orbits, the moon changes orientation wrt an inertial reference frame.
Yep. And when an astronomical body changes orientation wrt to an inertial reference frame it is said to be rotating.
“Yep. And when an astronomical body changes orientation wrt to an inertial reference frame it is said to be rotating”
…and, for what must be the 200th time, it is rotating (revolving, orbiting) about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not in its own axis. Have you not been paying attention?
DREMT,
Let’s walk through this carefully.
Draw your polar coordinate system such that the radius r=0 is fixed at the center of mass of the Moon and the angle a=0 is fixed onto a distant point like a star or feature on the CMB. Do not reorient this reference frame. If you change what the angle a=0 is pointing at then you have changed its orientation and made it non-inertial. Don’t do that.
Now pick a point on the Moon’s surface. Plot its position in the form (r,a) on this coordinate system at each time step. Is the angle ‘a’ changing? Yes! In fact it is changing by 0.3 rads/day. And because W=0.3 rad/day we say the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
Pseudomod
I thought you would have definitely understood AND accepted the need for keeping clear the difference between
– rotation of a body (around its axis)
– orbiting of a body (around another one).
The Moon is, in the sense listed above, is NOT rotating about Earth’s and Moon’s barycentre. It orbits or revolves around it.
It seems that – intentionally or by ignorance – you wish to continue to switch between these two fundamentally different aspects, and to freely mix them.
This is the reason why you can’t (or don’t want to) answer to my question in the comment above:
” Suppose Earth would not rotate about its axis while orbiting around the Sun. How would then, in your mind, Moons trajectory behave?
Would, upon each revolution, the Moon pass over Earth exactly at the same places, or would it not? ”
Thus, I dont see any reason for further communication. That makes no sense.
I’m losing precious time here.
J.-P. D.
bdgwx,
Let’s walk through this carefully.
Our position is that the motion “orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined as motion as per the moon. “Axial rotation” is then defined as separate and independent of this motion.
Do you understand that, even if you do not agree?
If so, we can progress further. If not, you are beyond help.
“it is rotating (revolving, orbiting) about the Earth/moon barycenter”
The astronomical body aka Earth’s moon, is NOT rotating about that barycenter DREMT as that violates your own author’s definition of rotational axis since the axis thru the Earth/moon barycenter does not intersect the moon as is required for a rotational axis.
“Our position is that the motion “orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined as motion as per the moon.”
Orbital motion without axial rotation is your own author’s 2(a), just translation. The object in 2(a) presents all faces per orbit to its orbital axis thus cannot be “as per the moon”.
The moon is like the object in 2(b) presenting same face to its orbital axis per orbit, while rotating once on the rotational axis intersecting the body.
DREMT/GR/bill,
Your arguments are characterized by making at least 1 and possibly all 3 of the following mistakes.
– Conflating orbital revolution with sidereal rotation.
– Trying to redefine “rotation” as something other than how NASA and the rest of us defines it for astronomical bodies.
– You are a using a non-inertial reference frame.
Then you need to edit Wikipedia, Ball4.
Wikipedia: Rotation around a fixed axis.
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
Yes DREMT, according to your own text book author Wiki does make a basic text book mistake. Happens. You should always go to the original references Wiki lists.
When the word “rotation” is used in the context of astronomical bodies it always through the axis that goes through the center of mass of the body in question.
bdgwx, it is clear that you, Ball4, Bindidon and bobdroege etc still do not even understand the “Non-Spinner” position. There are some here who do understand, but disagree. You are not there yet. Hence I suggest people take your pontifications on what our arguments are “characterized by” with a pinch of salt.
“When the word “rotation” is used in the context of astronomical bodies it always through the axis that goes through the center of mass of the body in question.”
So, when I use it for the motion about the Earth/moon barycenter, mentally substitute “revolution”. Not difficult, is it?
“So, when I use (rotation) for the motion about the Earth/moon barycenter, mentally substitute “revolution”. Not difficult, is it?”
True, not difficult. So when DREMT uses “no” before “moon rotation on its own axis” and “GHE”, mentally substitute “yes”. Not difficult, is it?
You do that anyway, Ball4. You read what you want to read.
DREMPTY,
I certainly understand the non-spinner position and have said it is wrong more than once.
You are defining non-spinning as what the moon does.
And here is how you did that
“Our position is that the motion “orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined as motion as per the moon.”
This is a prime example of circular reasoning.
The moon is not spinning because that is what the moon is doing, it’s not spinning.
It was a description, not an explanation.
Either way, it’s still a fallacy.
In an inertial reference frame the moon is spinning.
“Our position is that the motion ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is defined as motion as per the moon. ‘Axial rotation’ is then defined as separate and independent of this motion.”
OMG DREMTs definitions evolve as needed, until they reach entirely circular logic.
Thus whatever complicated motion the Moon has (and it is complicated) actually forms the basis for our universal description of motion?
Weird.
From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating (revolving) about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not about the axis passing through its center of mass.
Chalk circle, blob.
DREMT said: From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating (revolving) about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not about the axis passing through its center of mass.
That’s just flat wrong.
Points on the surface in an inertial reference frame where radius r=0 is fixed to the axis through the center of mass and angle a=0 fixed to a distant point definitely have time varying angle values for the (r,a) coordinates. It is unequivocal and unambiguous…the Moon has a non-zero angular velocity in that reference frame and is thus rotating and changing orientation about the axis through its center of mass.
…and so do the particles comprising the floor within the chalk circle, drawn at the edge of the merry-go-round, bdgwx. But they are most definitely not rotating about an axis in the center of that circle. They are rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round.
Looks like you are flat out wrong, Back Door Guy.
If I’m wrong then it should be really easy to compute the angular velocity W of any surface point on the Moon wrt to the inertial reference frame through the Moon’s center of mass and fixed onto a distant point and show that it is 0 rads/sec. Can you do that?
If I’m wrong then it should be really easy to compute the angular velocity W of any surface point on the chalk circle wrt to the inertial reference frame through the circle’s center and fixed onto a distant point and show that it is rotating on its own axis. Can you do that?
I would love for you to admit that you believe the contents of the chalk circle are rotating on their own axis, as the merry-go-round rotates.
Drempty, you say
“From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating (revolving) about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not about the axis passing through its center of mass.
Chalk circle, blob.”
Depends on where you set the inertial reference frame.
You might specify the Sun as the center of an inertial reference frame or better yet the cosmic microwave background.
Of course relative to both of those the moon is both spinning on its own axis and revolving around the earth-moon barycenter.
As to the chalk circle, as it is part of the merry-go-round it is of course rotating around the same axis that the merry-go-round is rotating around. Draw an arrow normal to the chalk circle and as the merry-go-round rotates the arrow points in directions around the circle indicating that the chalk circle is indeed rotating on the same axis as the merry-go-round.
binny….”And when an astronomical body changes orientation wrt to an inertial reference frame it is said to be rotating”.
Not rotating, performing curvilinear translation.
bdgwx says:
If Im wrong then it should be really easy to compute the angular velocity W of any surface point on the Moon wrt to the inertial reference frame through the Moons center of mass and fixed onto a distant point and show that it is 0 rads/sec. Can you do that?
========================================
Only if you can prove that the moon is traveling around its barycenter at 0 rads/sec. And if you can I will use your proof to provide the proof you are asking for.
“As to the chalk circle, as it is part of the merry-go-round it is of course rotating around the same axis that the merry-go-round is rotating around.”
…and not about an axis passing through its center. Note that all particles within the chalk circle move in concentric circles about the center of the merry-go-round. Same as all particles of the moon move in concentric ellipses about the Earth/moon barycenter.
“…and not about an axis passing through its center”
Meaning the center of the chalk circle.
bill said: Only if you can prove that the moon is traveling around its barycenter at 0 rads/sec. And if you can I will use your proof to provide the proof you are asking for.
I assume you mean the Earth-Moon barycenter? It’s not 0 rads/sec.
W=0.23 rads/day using polar coordinates where radius r=0 is through the Earth-Moon barycenter and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant star.
W=0.23 rads/day using polar coordinates where radius r=0 is through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed onto a distant star. This is called the sidereal angular velocity.
W=0.21 rads/day using polar coordinates where radius r=0 is through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed onto the Sun. This is called the synodic angular velocity.
Note the subtle difference between the Moon’s sidereal angular velocity and synodic angular velocity 0.23 vs 0.21 rads/day. Notice that they are both non-zero.
bdgwx just doesn’t get it, bill. And he most likely never will.
DREMT,
Show me your value for the angular velocity W for both the sidereal and synodic reference frames.
Define exactly where your polar coordinate radius r=0 is at and where your angle a=0 is pointed towards first.
I would like to see how you and bill are getting W=0 rads/day.
I’m not getting 0 rads/day for rotation of the moon about the Earth/moon barycenter, bdgwx.
bdgwx, per DREMT: “So, when I use (rotation) for the motion about the Earth/moon barycenter, mentally substitute “revolution”. Not difficult, is it? Thus:
I’m not getting 0 rads/day for revolution of the moon about the Earth/moon barycenter, bdgwx.
Your purpose in life is only to confuse the issue, Ball4.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
bdgwx just doesnt get it, bill. And he most likely never will.
========================================
he doesn’t want to because then he would have to admit that science isn’t as Godly as he believes it is. My Gawd!!! Then he would be a skeptic and heretic to the church and the heirarchy he is the blind servant for.
Yeah, that makes sense ball4. When I replace “rotate on its own axis” with “revolve around the paired barycenter” then most things fall into place.
But…I think we may need to also have translations for the angular velocity semantics as well since the gist I’m getting is that his “not spinning” definition can still be expressed with a non-zero angular velocity.
bdgwx, if the moon had zero orbital angular velocity it would have to be either:
a) hanging motionless in space.
b) moving in a straight line.
Since nobody is arguing a) or b), why are you surprised when we accept that the orbital angular velocity is non-zero?
I’m not surprised that the Moon has non-zero orbital angular velocity. In fact, it was me that calculated its orbital angular velocity as 0.23 rads/day in a previous post.
Here’s what I think. You’re now trying to deflect the conversation away from rotational angular velocity by introducing an argument I am not making. In other words…you’re building a strawman here.
“I’m not surprised that the Moon has non-zero orbital angular velocity.”
I didn’t say you were. I said:
“why are you surprised when we accept that the orbital angular velocity is non-zero?”
Well, ok, I’m not surprised that you accept it either. I mean you never claimed that the orbital angular velocity is zero. And I’ve never thought you were making that claim.
What I’m surprised by is your rejection that the angular velocity about the Moon’s own axis is non-zero.
Note that “Moon’s own axis” means the axis through the Moon’s center of mass. This is how you quantify the Moon’s rotation. It can be down via the sidereal or synodic reference frames. Both of those go through the Moon’s center of mass. Both of those are oriented to a distant point beyond the Moon.
“Note that “Moon’s own axis” means the axis through the Moon’s center of mass”
Yes, I know. That’s the axis the moon does not rotate on.
And yet the angular velocity is 0.23 rads/day on that axis. So you must be using something other than angular velocity to quantify rotation.
Try reading through my comments again, until you understand.
Nate says:
Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.
Your assumption that its moment of inertia is THE SAME as a standard solid object is just that, an assumption.
Not a fact.
Yet you confidently and weirdly declare that we and astronomers have it all wrong??!
Hilarious..you are an oddball.
Here is a detailed reason why your assumption is wrong.
===========================================
‘We’ who is we Nate?
Near as I can tell you have your head in the stars and don’t know jack about engineering.
Engineers build merry-go-rounds with spinning toys on them all the time Nate. Where have you been? With your head buried in the sand?
what we have here is complete denial. You won’t go near the calculations because they will embarrass you so instead you simply claim its impossible. But its just high school physics Nate. Build one determine the various moments of inertia and take note that you can’t quickly accelerate a merry-go-round and have the globes on super slick bearings spin anywhere near as fast as the merry-go-round. Just pick up your toy fidget spinner and check it out. . . .and those aren’t super slick bearings they are 10cents a piece bearings.
“Near as I can tell you have your head in the stars and don’t know jack about engineering.”
I see its ad hom time, Bill.
I noticed you have no substantive responses to the content of my posts.
Which parts do you think Ive made up?
And please do show us the correct physics.
” Build one determine the various moments of inertia and take note that you cant quickly accelerate a merry-go-round and have the globes on super slick bearings spin anywhere near as fast as the merry-go-round.”
Svantes experiment much easier. We await your results.
Where are your calculations that youve based your certainty on?
Nate says:
I see its ad hom time, Bill.
I noticed you have no substantive responses to the content of my posts.
Which parts do you think Ive made up?
And please do show us the correct physics.
====================================
How can I show you the correct physics Nate. I used the classical formulas for the moment of inertia to prove that no additional energy was required to spin a object at the same rotation rate as the orbit to keep it in specific alignment with the object its rotating. To which you made the following comment:
Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.
So unless you are lying you have no basis to complain about what I already showed you.
binny…”clearly shows that due to Moons rotation about its axis, the orbiting vehicle had to perform an orbital plane change maneuver, prior to the LM ascent from the lunar surface”.
I think somebody at NASA goofed, if that drawing is from NASA. It is the lander that is orbiting with the mother ship and must adjust to a vertical landing as it leaves the mother ship due to its orbital speed. The arrow indicating lunar rotation is obviously the rotation of the spacecraft.
If the Moon is supposedly rotating once every 28 days, the rotating rate would be so slow as to be insignificant. The velocity of the spacecraft with the lander, on the other hand would be very significant.
Remember, the face where the lander set down is always facing the Earth. If the Moon had been rotating, the landing zone would have changed and disappeared from view on Earth. That did not happen and a reflector is still in place where they landed so that anyone on Earth can shine a laser on it and have it reflected back.
“I think somebody at NASA goofed”
Time and again the science is shown. Time and again Robertson blithely tells us that the scientists are wrong.
Luckily, no one not mired in an agenda or trolling is confused by the inanity of this refrain.
“The arrow indicating lunar rotation is obviously the rotation of the spacecraft.”
It’s just indicating that the orbital motion of the moon causes a reorientation of the moon relative to an inertial reference frame. We’re back here again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474035
“the orbital motion of the moon causes a reorientation of the moon relative to an inertial reference frame.”
So from now on wherever DREMT writes the terms “reorientation of the moon” the reader is expected to substitute “rotation about the moon’s own axis” per DREMT physics text link Fig. 2(b) “rotation” about an axis intersecting the body. Not difficult, is it?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474075
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474050
As I try to follow all the arguments, up and down the thread, it appears DREMT has a really good “model”. His chalk circle on the edge of a merry-go-round could have the outward half (semi-circle) painted white, and the inward half painted black. As the merry-go-round rotated, the chalk circle would appear to be “rotating about its axis” as viewed from off the merry-go-round. But, would not be “rotating about its axis” when viewed from aboard the merry-go-round. The chalk circle “models” the motion of the moon.
So, is the chalk circle really “rotating on its axis” or just orbiting?
The answer is made obvious by stopping the merry-go-round. The chalk circle was only orbiting. The orbiting motion caused the appearance of “rotating above its axis”. The chalk circle could not be “rotating about its axis”, because it could not move.
ClintR, see the dynamics of rigid bodies text posted by DREMT:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473992
The chalk circle is 2(b) “rotation”, just draw a chalk circle on the rectangle (or observe one of its particles) and observe chalk circle will complete one complete rotation on its own intersecting (internal) axis per orbit of the external axis though O.
If the chalk circle or the moon were not rotating and only translating, that would be 2(a) “translation” alone. This motion by the moon is not observed as we see only one hemisphere of the moon from Earth. 2(a) would be observed say by Hubble telescope fixed on a distant star each earthen orbit of its external axis.
2(a) presents all faces to the external axis of its orbit, 2(b) presents same face to the center of its orbit just like the moon presents the same hemisphere to Earth. DREMT’s cite explains the moon is rotating on its own axis same as DREMT’s words: “the orbital motion of the moon causes a reorientation of the moon relative to an inertial reference frame.”
DREMT is easily confused by orbital mechanics as demonstrated on this blog thus DREMT’s comments are confused while the text he posted is not.
ClintR says:
The answer is made obvious by stopping the merry-go-round. The chalk circle was only orbiting. The orbiting motion caused the appearance of rotating above its axis. The chalk circle could not be rotating about its axis, because it could not move.
=========================
the chalk circle is well bonded to the Merry Go round. the moon isn’t so well bonded but if you gradually slowed the earth’s rotation slowly enough to not break the gravitational bond would the moon also stop? Or would it keep spinning?
barry…”Time and again the science is shown. Time and again Robertson blithely tells us that the scientists are wrong.”
Scientist have been wrong from time to time since Newton formalized science. Sometimes the majority have been wrong and one person right.
Since Freud revolutionized the understanding of the human mind, we have begun to understand that no matter how intelligent or how many degrees a scientist possesses, he can be wrong-headed. Jiddu Krishnamurti, a non-psychologist, revolutionized the way we understand the human mind. He held dialogs with eminent scientists like David Bohm, who were very interested in the distortions and illusions in the human mind.
For every Bohm, there are thousands of scientists who still don’t understand the basic failings of the human mind. One of them was Einstein, who dabbled in thought-experiments, falling prey to the weakness in that endeavour. He seemed to fail to understand that his human observer was changing time and space and that the real physical world was not changing.
Some scientists of NASA obviously lack the ability to LOOK at the Moon problem and see it is impossible for a tidally-locked Moon to rotate about its own axis. It was Tesla’s unorthodox approach to science that allowed him to see the obvious. You really have to LOOK at this problem to see the obvious.
Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock, took Einstein to task for the way he arrogantly changed length and time to suit his theory of relativity. The equation actually came from Lorentz. Length, as used as a parameter to measure space, and time, are constants defined based on natural phenomena on the Earth. Einstein arbitrarily re-defined them, causing Essen to claim the obvious, that Einstein did not understand measurement.
I just about fell over upon first reading Einstein’s version of relativity when he claimed time is the hands on a clock. I could not believe a highly regarded physicist would make such a simplistic statement. Then he proceeded to define the universe based on accelerations while ignoring the force that causes acceleration and the mass accelerated. Naturally, that lead to him re-defining time and space.
The basic formula for length, as distance, is s = vt. Where v = velocity and t = time. Einstein re-defined the units as s = vt(1-v^2/c^2). He had no scientific evidence upon which to base his new definition, he did it based on conjecture, based on a thought experiment. And there are far too many people willing to accept that nonsense because Einstein had a huge reputation.
You can see, based on his formula, that time can now change and that changes distance, as v -> c. In fact, if v = c, s and t disappear and if v > c, s and t become negative. I am sure that’s why Einstein claimed nothing is faster than light because if it is, his equation becomes utter nonsense.
If Einstein can get caught in an illusion, so can NASA.
“If Einstein can get caught in an illusion, so can NASA.”
You make such excuses every single time mainstream science disagrees with you. Without exception. Every single time.
As I said, no one rational is confused as to the meaning of this routine of yours.
“The chalk circle is 2(b) “rotation”, just draw a chalk circle on the rectangle (or observe one of its particles) and observe chalk circle will complete one complete rotation on its own intersecting (internal) axis per orbit of the external axis though O.”
As ClintR noted, the chalk circle obviously can’t move on its own. It can only move with the rectangle. So, as it is physically impossible for it to rotate on its own axis whilst the rectangle is stationary, it cannot be rotating on its own axis whilst the rectangle rotates about point O. Like the rectangle itself, it is merely orbiting point O and not rotating on its own axis. The paths of the particles are following concentric circles about point O.
Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross like that.
“the rectangle is stationary”
DREMT, the rectangle is NOT stationary, it is moving in rigid body dynamics about a central axis in your linked Fig.s 2(a) and 2(b).
Like the rectangle itself, (chalk circle) is merely orbiting and not rotating on its own axis in 2(a) “curvilinear translation”. Like Hubble staring at a distant star each orbit.
Like the rectangle itself, (chalk circle) is orbiting point O and rotating on its own axis in 2(b) “rotating”. Like the moon.
So, imagine the rectangle is stationary. Can you do that, Ball4?
Whilst it is stationary, can the chalk circle rotate on its own axis. Yes or No (the correct answer is “no”)?
A: 1) Yes & 2) No.
Stationary would be statics, we are discussing dynamics of rigid bodies, you know, like the moon. Get back to the discussion DREMT.
Since the chalk circle, and the rectangle itself, cannot rotate about their own axes when stationary, when in motion it is the same.
When in motion, the rectangle is in rotation about point O.
Not on its own axis.
Because, as Wikipedia agrees, the axis of rotation need not go through the body in question. The axis of rotation is through point O. Not through the center of mass of the rectangle, and not through the center of the chalk circle.
So now DREMT changes to disagree with his link Fig. 2(b) “rotation” showing the rectangle having orbited O and rotated about its own intersecting axis. DREMT can’t keep his stories straight.
This is because DREMT intentionally confuses the reader about axes in his writings. In 2(b), there is an orbital axis through O non-intersecting the rectangle and an axis intersecting the rectangle about which the rectangle is “rotating” as the caption states.
In 2(a) the rectangle is only translating, while in 2(b) the rectangle is both translating AND rotating. Which is the point the author is making, a point entirely missed by DREMT.
I have not changed my story, I am not trying to intentionally confuse anybody, and the author does not claim 2(b) is translating and rotating.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
“…the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles”
Just “in rotation” about point O, and not about its own center of mass.
By the way, you keep going on about axes “intersecting”. Here is the quote in more context:
“In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
I think the second full stop is a mistake, and should be a comma. Seems the author agrees with my earlier Wikipedia quote that the axis need not intersect the body, but if it does, the particles located on the axis have zero velocity and acceleration. That would seem like a more natural way to read that part of the text.
If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.about THAT intersecting axis of rotation. This is obvious except to DREMT.
Those 2(b) particles located on the rectangle intersecting axis of rotation still have nonzero velocity and nonzero acceleration about the other nonintersecting axis through O.
DREMT agreed this Fig. 2(b) & its prose and now DREMT disagrees. Story changed, confusion about which axes exists with DREMT not the author.
I have not changed my story. Sorry your reading comprehension is poor.
DREMT wrote agreed with 2(b) “rotation” which is correct, now you state no rotation so now don’t agree. Story changed.
Unlike DREMT my story hasn’t changed, 2(b) “rotation” is correct for all my comments. Sorry DREMT confusion is so evident.
Because the rectangle is rotating about point O, not about its center of mass.
So now the rectangle is both rotating and NOT rotating whereas previously DREMT agreed with Fig. 2(b) “rotating”.
DREMT is so confused it’s really funny. Readers should pay attention to, and learn from, the text book DREMT linked Fig. 2(b) for correct rigid body dynamics & not DREMT comments.
It is rotating about point O, not its own axis. Unbelievably simple and easy to understand.
Readers should pay attention to unbelievably simple and easy to understand DREMT linked Fig. 2(b) “rotation” on rectangles own intersecting axis for correct rigid body dynamics science as DREMT once correctly agreed.
Indeed, pay attention to Fig 2(b), in which the rectangle is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis.
That would be Fig. 2(a) “translation”. Pay attention to the science of rigid body dynamics in DREMT’s text not the confused DREMT comments.
Wrong.
Well maybe someone here who is smarter than a bag of ball bearings might realize that a camshaft is indeed rotating, yet not on an axis through its center of gravity.
So some bag of ball bearings commentators are trying to make us follow a bag of rotten red fish.
We understand your position, it’s just you forgot your legs and your lever.
“the chalk circle obviously cant move on its own. It can only move with the rectangle. So, as it is physically impossible for it to rotate on its own axis whilst the rectangle is stationary”
Great!
But of no relevance to the Moon, since the Moon is obviously not attached to anything.
You definitely still do not get it, blob.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It is rotating about point O, not its own axis. Unbelievably simple and easy to understand.
===================================
These guys are book learners DREMT, the book didn’t tell them point O could be anything but a centrally located axis and since they can’t think on there own they don’t understand what you are saying.
Yeah, one of the things I learned from books is when to use there, their and they’re.
When you get them mixed up it lowers your credibility.
Wait, like you had any to start with.
You got it, Bill.
Our own Mr Trump, who has a hunch that the science is wrong, says:
“These guys are book learners DREMT”.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
“These guys are book learners DREMT?”.
Yeah, ‘book learning’, what a waste of time.
Oh wait, I think people in all the accredited professions, that Bill is so enamored with, have to do a lot of that.
If the alternative to book learning is making up your own facts and physics based on what feels right, like the DREMT Team does, I’ll gladly go with book learning.
#2
You got it, Bill.
Svante says: (and Nate)
May 22, 2020 at 5:34 AM
Our own Mr Trump, who has a hunch that the science is wrong, says:
These guys are book learners DREMT.
Ill take that as a compliment.
=============================================
Well you shouldn’t. Most of us are book learners but there is an innate intelligence in a person who never ever picks up a book and there is absolutely zero evidence that reading books increases your intelligence. Knowledge is acquired from empirical experience. Book learning isn’t empirical but it can lead a person to seek empirical experience to confirm what the book says and what the limits are of what it is saying. Recognizing those limits is not something a book tells you about at all, unless of course its on that specific topic and operating from an empirical experiment as does most of the stuff in well edited and reviewed books.
The difference is in understanding the limitations of what the book says. Thats why I can look at a science study with just a little understanding of the specialized languages being spoke and determine what was empirically determined and what is being extrapolated.
You guys are extrapolating your idea of an object spinning on its axis to orbital rotation. You are doing that simply because the psuedovectors of that analysis are translatable to all rotations. Fundamentally its not understanding that worlds are unique (perhaps even like multi-layered non-physically separated greenhouse effects are only occur in worlds and not greenhouses.
Not understanding those limitations leads to a form of snobbery and a belief in the concept of stupid masses. I say stupid because we are all ignorant. Some of us are ignorant because of book learning and some of us are ignorant due to the lack of it and stupidity has a rather minor role in dividing who is on what side of that line.
bobdroege says:
Yeah, one of the things I learned from books is when to use there, their and theyre.
When you get them mixed up it lowers your credibility.
Wait, like you had any to start with.
===================================
Sorry if you found that confusing but I don’t do any proof reading here as it saves a lot of time.
No Bill I didn’t find it confusing.
So your time is more important than your credibility.
There their, blob. It will be OK.
“You guys are extrapolating your idea of an object spinning on its axis to orbital rotation. You are doing that simply because the psuedovectors of that analysis are translatable to all rotations. Fundamentally its not understanding that worlds are unique”
Basic kinematics is clearly beyond Bill’s skill level.
His alternative to using the universally accepted definitions of motion, that have a proven track record, is to spout pseudo-philosphical babble?
bobdroege says:
“So your time is more important than your credibility.”
And that would be why he doesn’t read any science.
It’s quicker start another wild goose chase and ignore the result.
Nate says:
Basic kinematics is clearly beyond Bills skill level.
His alternative to using the universally accepted definitions of motion, that have a proven track record, is to spout pseudo-philosphical babble?
========================================
Actually the only thing beyond anybody’s skill level here is ficticious kinematics.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
Irellevant to motion in an inertial reference frame, Bill, which is what we have been talking about whenver we describe the Moons orbit plus rotation wrt the stars.
I get that you believe an inertial reference frame is appropriate but you haven’t yet given a reason why. I gave you and educational link explaining why a non-inertial reference frame is the correct frame, because of fictitious forces. So your job to dispute that is show how rotational inertia must be overcome in the presence of an orbital non-inertial reference frame.
I would agree that rotational inertia would be required in a non-orbital reference frame (inertial frame of reference) for a celestial body simply traveling straight through space as shot from a cannon.
but that becomes incorrect when you overlay it with orbital gravitational pull (centripetal) when you do that you overlay the non-inertial reference frame with respect to the angular velocity created in that frame.
” get that you believe an inertial reference frame is appropriate but you havent yet given a reason why.”
Motion is intuitive in an inertial frame and Newtons Laws apply.
There are no fictitious forces arising without a torque.
“I gave you and educational link explaining why a non-inertial reference frame is the correct frame, because of fictitious forces.”
Nope. Its not saying that at all. A non-inertial frame is specific to each body, and not universal. It is saying there are fictitious forces in a non-inertial frame. The word ‘fictious’ tells you that these are not real forces, and often not intuitive.
For example, on the spinning MGR, in its non-inertial frame of reference, you cannot walk in a straight line to the center without experiencing a weird sideways fictitious force (Coriolis). How can that be better for understanding what is going on?
“So your job to dispute that is show how rotational inertia must be overcome in the presence of an orbital non-inertial reference frame.”
Nope, I’ll happily stay in the inertial frame that Astronomy wisely prefers, because it is universal. In it, Newton’s Laws can be applied. Newton’s 2nd Law for Rotation says a body that is not rotating requires a torque to overcome its rotational inertia and start it rotating.
“I would agree that rotational inertia would be required in a non-orbital reference frame (inertial frame of reference) for a celestial body simply traveling straight through space as shot from a cannon.”
Great, now explain to DREMT.
“but that becomes incorrect when you overlay it with orbital gravitational pull (centripetal)”
Oops, backsliding to prior erroneous beliefs. An orbit can described well in an inertial frame. And Newton’s laws will still apply.
” when you do that you overlay the non-inertial reference frame with respect to the angular velocity created in that frame.”
Overlay?? Makes no sense. A frame is not overlaid. You are either in an inertial frame or a non-inertial frame.
If your point is that things look different in a non-inertial frame, that is true, but it makes everything more complicated and non-universal and non-intuitive.
#3
You got it, Bill.
Nate says:
Motion is intuitive in an inertial frame and Newtons Laws apply.
There are no fictitious forces arising without a torque.
“I gave you and educational link explaining why a non-inertial reference frame is the correct frame, because of fictitious forces.”
Nope. Its not saying that at all. A non-inertial frame is specific to each body, and not universal. It is saying there are fictitious forces in a non-inertial frame. The word ‘fictious’ tells you that these are not real forces, and often not intuitive.
=====================================
Nate it is true you don’t have to use a non-inertial frame of reference to understand what is going on. A non-inertial frame of reference simply allows you to treat the objects in the frame alone and all by themselves. You are incorrect that you see a Coriolis Effect in a non-inertial frame of reference you can only see it when there isn’t a non-inertial frame of reference.
In the case of the MGR if you make the rotating MGR as your frame of reference its obvious that the globes are not spinning (despite the fact the MGR is spinning) and to put a spin on them you will have to apply a force to do so.
So what the non-inertial frame of reference tells you are two things 1) the globes are not spinning; and 2) the frame of reference is what is spinning. From that point on you can easily understand what is rotating around what and how much force you need to apply to change things and what things will change when you apply those forces.
You say its confusing but its only confusing because of your inculcation, denial, and not fully understanding how to apply a frame of reference.
And you are hearing this from a guy who has known what a frame of reference is for exactly two days. I have never used this tool before instead doing it a more messy way of having everything in front of me at one time and needing to mentally keep track of everything at one time.
The ball runs straight in the non-inertial frame of reference. the eye only perceives a curved path in the more complete inertial frame of reference. . . .which is what your eye sees. . . .like a globe spinning on its axis.
“You are incorrect that you see a Coriolis Effect in a non-inertial frame of reference you can only see it when there isn’t a non-inertial frame of reference.”
My point is walking from outside to center of a MGR, one feels pushed in the direction of rotation. This is a fictitious force.
In the inertial frame outside the MGR, one sees that the person had a higher speed on the outside, and walking to the center, the person is moving faster than the parts of the MGR near the center.
“In the case of the MGR if you make the rotating MGR as your frame of reference its obvious that the globes are not spinning (despite the fact the MGR is spinning) and to put a spin on them you will have to apply a force to do so.”
Again using a rotating reference frame can be done, but it leads to fictitious forces, and can confuse, because as mentioned Newtons Laws fail in such an accelerated frame.
“So what the non-inertial frame of reference tells you are two things 1) the globes are not spinning; and 2) the frame of reference is what is spinning. From that point on you can easily understand what is rotating around what and how much force you need to apply to change things and what things will change when you apply those forces.”
Great, if you want to live in a non-inertial frame, then you will
a. Have to select a new one for each planet system.
b. Be unable to apply Newton’s Laws
c. Still be confused about what is spinning and not, and unable to explain it with clarity.
d. Be confused about which forces are real and which fictitious.
Why would all of that be preferable?
“And you are hearing this from a guy who has known what a frame of reference is for exactly two days.”
Glad to hear you admit that. Good example for people here.
Then I don’t understand your desire to tell astronomers and those of us who have lots of experience with reference frames, that we have it all wrong.
Nate says:
Glad to hear you admit that. Good example for people here.
Then I don’t understand your desire to tell astronomers and those of us who have lots of experience with reference frames, that we have it all wrong.
===========================
You do have it wrong and the moment of inertia calculation proves it. There is no difference in the moment of inertia for an mgr with fixed globes and one where the globes are free of the torque driving the mgrs around the common barycenter.
If you have to include the rotational inertia of fixed spinning globes in the moment of inertia of such an mgr. And you don’t have to include it for the calculation of the mgr that has free spinning globes (i.e. maintain their orientation to the fixed stars). that difference has to show up in the calculation for the moment of inertia. And no such difference shows up.
So the law of conservation of energy says there is no rotational inertia specific to the individual globes. And if there is no rotational inertia they aren’t spinning independent of the orbital motion.
The non-inertial frame of reference is important here. Its simply a model that separates the rotational inertia for the entire accelerated mgr from any rotational inertia specific to the orbiting individual globes.
As the mgrs are accelerated the globes only turn if there is a connection to the overall rotational inertia of the mgrs.
since the 2 mgrs have the same rotational inertia and one mgr completely physically disconnects itself from being able to supply any torque to the individual globes via frictionless bearings while the other one welds the bearings ensuring that any available torque will be supplied. Case closed.
continuing to deny it is a denial of well known and well accepted classical physical laws.
And if you can’t see why you really haven’t thought about it. Fact is the moment of inertia for both mgrs includes the mass of the globes and their distance from the center of the orbit. Further its logical that neither mgr will impart any torque whatsoever on the individual globes. The push point on the individual globes is dead center in the middle of their mass (thus generating zero torque on the globes).
Yet they appear to rotate around their center of mass in the inertial frame of reference leading many to believe they are rotating on their axis (which would be true if the axis wasn’t also rotating at the same angular velocity). The same illusion exists for the welded globes and the globes on frictionless bearings.
In the non-accelerated inertial frame of reference neither of them move demonstrating no rotational inertia independent of the mgr rotational inertia.
Folks around here were claiming the globes on the frictionless bearings would not move with the mgr and thus would show up as moving in the non-inertial frame of reference. But it can clearly be shown they are hypothesizing a rotation with no torque to drive it. Thats impossible via the laws of physics.
. .just like the people in the turning car in the example being tossed around here for non-inertial frames of reference and fictitious forces.
And your response to that? Oh non-inertial frames of reference are more complicated and non-universal and non-intuitive.!!! So why the heck are they considered to be a tool in physics????? Indeed they are only a tool for those who grasp how to use them and that’s obviously not you.
But of course you know all that and your job here is obfuscation of the facts. Does anybody pay you for that idiotic kind of work?
“since the 2 mgrs have the same rotational inertia”
only since bill forgets to calculate the disappeared rotational inertia of the one mgr completely physically disconnecting itself from being able to supply any torque to the individual globes via frictionless bearings while the other one welds the bearings ensuring that any available torque will be supplied.
Yes, the case was closed the moment bill forgot to calculate that missing 20 hole rotational inertia of frictionless bearings. The 2 mgrs do not have the same rotational inertia.
To prove it through experiment, see the video posted by bdgwx and the one I posted with the ball on the string that is knife cut.
Ball4 says:
“since the 2 mgrs have the same rotational inertia”
only since bill forgets to calculate the disappeared rotational inertia of the one mgr completely physically disconnecting itself from being able to supply any torque to the individual globes via frictionless bearings while the other one welds the bearings ensuring that any available torque will be supplied.
===============================
What you forget Ball4 is ‘the axis’ is dead center of the individual globe mass. So what force is applying torque? There is none because the only force, the centripetal force, is pulling on dead center mass.
You can rule out the mgr from supply the torque for the individual globes. I erased your comment about the holes because the mgrs are specified as having identical mass everywhere so you can’t start inventing imperfections. Perfect conditions are mandated by the pull of gravity on the moon. There are no holes forgotten, except by you. You are making yourself look like a fool. You must be smarter than that.
But on the other hand if you are in here denying the laws of physics so be it.
=====================
=====================
Ball4 says:
To prove it through experiment, see the video posted by bdgwx and the one I posted with the ball on the string that is knife cut.
==========================
I have been pondering Nicola Tesla’s argument that if the moon is spun off it will be spun off without any spin. Yet your video shows a stringed ball leaving the hand with a spin. Tesla addressed that.
Here is how I see the story. The string on the ball has two functions in the case of spinning the ball around. One is to supply the centripetal force and the other to pull the ball around in a circle and give it it’s speed.
You can’t just spin a ball on a string without leading it. Thus this force unlike gravity is not dead center mass. It must serve both jobs and thus will impart torque on the ball.
Evidence of that is how the hand has to pump the ball around to keep it going as you know when you practice this stuff you can keep it going by moving your hand in very small circles which adjusts the angle of the string on the ball relative to the axis its spinning on and imparts torque. So with zero native spin a moon will spin off with no spin because of zero torque on the moon.
The moon in orbit brought its own speed with it when it entered the solar system thus gravity isn’t anything like a string despite what you may believe.
“There is no difference in the moment of inertia for an mgr with fixed globes and one where the globes are free of the torque driving the mgrs around the common barycenter'”
Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.
Your assumption that its moment of inertia is THE SAME as a standard solid object is just that, an assumption.
Not a fact.
Yet you confidently and weirdly declare that we and astronomers have it all wrong??!
Hilarious..you are an oddball.
Here is a detailed reason why your assumption is wrong.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477348
“You cant just spin a ball on a string without leading it. Thus this force unlike gravity is not dead center mass. It must serve both jobs and thus will impart torque on the ball.”
Exactly, Bill!
And why gravity doesnt supply torque on cannon balls and make cannonballs align their orientation with it, like a tether does for a tether ball.
bill, Nate is correct. “I erased your comment about the holes because the mgrs are specified as having identical mass everywhere so you cant start inventing imperfections.”
Identical mass yes, but, as Svante, Nate point out, you can’t add any rotational inertia of that mass inside the ring of frictionless bearings creating 20 rotational inertia holes instead of 20 items with rotational inertia on welded bearings.
“your video shows a stringed ball leaving the hand with a spin.”
The ball attachment point continues to point in substantially the same direction N after the noisy knife cut eliminating string forcing where it should have continued to rotate CCW pointing N,W,S,E as it does when being forced by the string.
Nate says:
You cant just spin a ball on a string without leading it. Thus this force unlike gravity is not dead center mass. It must serve both jobs and thus will impart torque on the ball.
Exactly, Bill!
And why gravity doesnt supply torque on cannon balls and make cannonballs align their orientation with it, like a tether does for a tether ball.
====================================
Sheeesh Nate didn’t you just say: ‘Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.’
How are you being credible here Nate? Small wonder people don’t trust scientists. You besmirch their name.
Ball4 says:
Identical mass yes, but, as Svante, Nate point out, you cant add any rotational inertia of that mass inside the ring of frictionless bearings creating 20 rotational inertia holes instead of 20 items with rotational inertia on welded bearings.
=============================
Thats interesting Ball4 ‘rotational inertia holes’ is that one of those ideas like Nate has that you can’t look up in a book?
Bill,
You are not ALWAYS wrong. Hooray!
You are correct about the tether issue. I wish you would apply the same solid reasoning to the globes.
They are completely different issues.
Why are you tossing ad homs at me for telling you that you are correct?
The tether issue demonstrates why a tether ball held by a rope moves nothing like Newton’s cannon ball. The rope applies torque, gravity does not.
The globes without torque applied, also move like Newtons cannonball, with fixed orientation.
“one of those ideas like Nate has that you cant look up in a book?”
When you guess the answer to your moment of inertia problem that is not in a book, that is not physics.
The beauty of understanding physics is that you can apply it to new problems.
No guessing involved.
Nate says:
one of those ideas like Nate has that you cant look up in a book?
When you guess the answer to your moment of inertia problem that is not in a book, that is not physics.
The beauty of understanding physics is that you can apply it to new problems.
No guessing involved.
==================================
Still waiting for you to demonstrate the beauty of physics Nate.
Whats holding you back? A lack of understanding?
A superb web site
https://www.penser-critique.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/200-preuves-attestant-que-la-terre-n_est-pas-une-boule-qui-tourne.pdf
200 proofs that Earth isn’t a turning ball!
I knew of this succulent document, but I never had a look at it.
Enjoy by copying text out of it into
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#fr/en
it gets automatically translated (the result sometimes looks a bit strange).
J.-P. D.
Here in English
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcx5itve8ymviu1/200%20Proofs%20Earth%20is%20Not%20a%20Spinning%20Ball%21.pdf?dl=0
Thx, I was sure there would be an English source, as the Frenchie version contains so much of that.
J.-P. D.
The censorship efforts of Planet of Humans is interesting:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/planet-of-the-greens/
Micheal Moore would want his film censored.
Trying to censor, can’t work. It’s like feeding a fat man with the Monty Python hope of explosion.
It appears the useful idiots, aren’t being useful.
It was going to end, anyhow.
Burning trees is same problem of burning coal- it’s a transportation problem- and wood is worse than coal.
And of course, the eyesore of rotting wind mills and solar.
gbaikie
” And of course, the eyesore of rotting wind mills and solar. ”
Hmmh.
Aside from the incredible status of the Tchernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants …
Have you ever calculated the amount of nuclear waste that is, after reprocessing, lying around in open basins in every nuclear power plant, mostly for decades until a final disposal nobody knows whether it will ever happen?
Each 1 GWel power unit consumes 30 tons of enriched uranium per year. The fuel rods are made of 20 % uranium 235/238, and 80% zirconium and steel.
Only 5 % of that is extracted upon reprocessing; the entire rest is contaminated waste, gbaikie.
And that will get much worse in a near future, because the MOX fuel rods are so extremely much hotter due to their plutonium contents that one would have to await 60 years for them to cool enough for reprocessing.
*
You said ‘eyesore‘ ??? Really?
–Have you ever calculated the amount of nuclear waste that is, after reprocessing, lying around in open basins in every nuclear power plant, mostly for decades until a final disposal nobody knows whether it will ever happen?–
Do mean the spent nuclear fuel which could be re-cycled in the future?
As many countries other than US is currently doing?
“Only 5 % of that is extracted upon reprocessing; the entire rest is contaminated waste, gbaikie.”
You mean “non-fissile U-238”?
Wiki:
“Around 99.284% of natural uranium’s mass is uranium-238, which has a half-life of 1.4110^17 seconds (4.468109 years, or 4.468 billion years).”
“Uranium is a naturally occurring element with an average concentration of 2.8 parts per million in the Earth’s crust.”
A cubic km has 1 billion cubic meter, 2.8 parts per million is
2800 cubic meter and density of 19.1 is 53,480 tons.
So you have about 53,000 tons uranium-238 within 1 km of anywhere you are. A hemisphere at 1 km depth is about 2.19 cubic km, so on average you would have twice this amount, but unlikely you have less 53,000 tons uranium-238 within 1 km of you. And with it about 400 tons of the more radioactive uranium isotopes.
And have about 2 to 2 times as much thorium within 1 km which is even less radioactive than uranium-238. It’s half life is about age of the Universe.
I had today a big laugh upon reading Robertson’s last comment on Moon’s rotation. His usual mix of ignorance and arrogance is really amazing; but this bypasses all he ever posted.
Yesterday I wrote:
” … due to Moons rotation about its axis, the orbiting vehicle had to perform an orbital plane change maneuver, prior to the LM ascent from the lunar surface. ”
” I think somebody at NASA goofed, if that drawing is from NASA. It is the lander that is orbiting with the mother ship and must adjust to a vertical landing as it leaves the mother ship due to its orbital speed. The arrow indicating lunar rotation is obviously the rotation of the spacecraft. ”
Ha ha haaa! Oh Noes. It’s hard to imagine a dumber reply, but yes: Robertson can.
Now he continues.
” If the Moon is supposedly rotating once every 28 days, … ”
If Robertson had ever been an engineer, his reaction obviously would have been, like I did, to compute the equatorial rotation speed, and to weight it with the cosine of the latitude of the landing point.
Instead, the never-has-ever-been-an-engineer writes:
” … the rotating rate would be so slow as to be insignificant. ”
Ahaa.
At Moon’s equator, the rotation speed is, for a diameter of 3474 km and a rotation time of about 27.3 days: some 4.63 m/s.
Looks quite insignificant indeed! But between Eagle’s landing and launching, there were 20:36:20 hours, i.e. 77780 seconds, what gives a displacement of 357.788 km.
Despite the weak inclination of the orbiting Columbia (1.25 degrees), this seems to have been enough to foresee a change in Columbia’s orbit such that Eagle’s ascent trajectory back to Columbia would not become longer than that at descent time.
The goal was absolutely evident in the Sixties: saving propellant to increase launching and ascent security!
I’m sure that if we would zoom down into Apollo’s technical reports, we would discover a trace of that.
*
But Robertson continues again, and suddenly Moon’s rotation becomes in his mind so tremendously significant anew that he writes:
” If the Moon had been rotating, the landing zone would have changed and disappeared from view on Earth. ”
How could that happen when the Moon needs 27.3 days to rotate about its axis?
But we aren’t at the end of his beautiful elucubration yet!
Look at this, it is really perfect:
” That did not happen and a reflector is still in place where they landed so that anyone on Earth can shine a laser on it and have it reflected back. ”
To achieve this, you must be in some advanced delirium state, best ignited by a judicious amount of Glenkinchie or Cragganmore… or was it Lagavulin yesterday? No one will ever know.
In German, one says when looking at such prose:
” Da fällt mir nun endgültig die Kinnlade herunter! ”
Something like “Now, my jaw definitely hangs down.”
But back to Huntsville: Robertson and his Pseudomod mate sure will continue enlightening us with their wonderful ideas, no doubt!
Let them do!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon flaunts his lack of understanding of the “Non-Spinner” position.
binny…”At Moons equator, the rotation speed is, for a diameter of 3474 km and a rotation time of about 27.3 days: some 4.63 m/s.”
Instead of making a fool of yourself, why don’t you try my simple coin experiment? A kinder could do it but apparently not you. Let’s see you replicate your claim by making the right coin, the Moon, rotate about its axis as you move it around the left coin, the Earth, with the proviso that the same face on the RH coin always points at the centre of the LH coin.
It’s easy, just draw a line through the centre of the right coin with an arrow pointing at the centre of the left coin. As you move the right hand coin around the left hand coin, lets see you make that arrow head rotate through 360 degrees around the axis of the right hand coin.
You’re such an idiot that you cannot see the obvious. The second you start rotating the right hand coin around its axis, the arrow is no longer pointing at the Earth coin. By the time you get halfway around the Earth coin the arrow is pointing directly away from it, meaning the near face is now the far face. Ergo, the Moon is no longer tidally-locked.
If you really believe that nonsense that the tidally-locked Moon makes exactly one rotation about its axis per orbit, prove it with the coins. Let’s see you do it.
The only way you can move the RH coin around the LH coin while keeping the arrow pointed at the centre of the LH coin, is to SLIDE the RH coin around the LH coin while gradually turning it to keep the line with the arrow perpendicular to the tangent line at that particular point. That replicates the effect of Earth’s gravity gradually turning the Moon, with linear momentum, WITHOUT causing it to rotate about its axis.
In that sliding motion, every point on the line with the arrow, including the axis, is moving in parallel circles around the LH coin’s centre. With such conditions, rotation about the RH axis is not possible. That sliding motion is called curvilinear translation, not rotation.
Oh!
No Classic Malt yesterday evening, as it seems. I suspect bourbon or tequila.
Deny, discredit, denigrate, insult… same as usual.
No comment needed here.
binny…”Deny, discredit, denigrate, insult same as usual.
No comment needed here”.
Binny dodges the facts, hiding behind words.
GR,
Draw your polar coordinate system such that radius r=0 is through the center of the RH coin and angle a=0 always pointing at a distant object away from your body.
As you move the RH around LH keeping the contact point on RH the same the whole time you will see that RH is changing orientation in this reference frame. This is the sidereal rotation reference frame. If it takes 10s for RH to orbit LH then the sidereal angular velocity of RH is 2pi / 10 = 0.63 rads/sec.
If you then introduce a 3rd coin that LH orbits around from a distance with a period of 100s then the synodic angular velocity of RH about that 3rd coin is 0.57 rads/sec.
Notice that both the sidereal and synodic reference frames have non-zero angular velocities for LH. LH is thus rotating regardless of which of those inertial reference frames you choose to use.
One way to help you visualize what’s happening here to put your right index finger on the RH coin and keep your index finger pointed at a distant point away from you the whole time. Your finger is then an inertial reference frame. An arrow on the RH coin that starts out pointing the same direction as your finger must also point to the left at 1/4 orbit, towards you at 2/4 orbit, right at 3/4 orbit, and finally away from you at 4/4 orbit. The arrow is changing orientation wrt to your index finger. You must use your left index finger to apply a torque to the RH coin while your right index finger is doing the orbital motion to keep that arrow pointed at the LH coin.
bdg…”As you move the RH around LH keeping the contact point on RH the same the whole time you will see that RH is changing orientation in this reference frame”.
I agree, it is changing it’s orientation during an orbit BUT it is not rotating about the axis. The motion you are seeing is curvilinear translation without rotation.
If you contain the radial portion of the line within the RH coin, with the arrow on the near side pointed always at the centre of the LH coin, the near side, the axis, and the far side are moving in concentric circles around the LH coin. With all of those points moving in concentric circles it is not possible for the near side and far side to cross over each other as would be required for rotation about the RH coin’s axis.
Sadly, the more bdgwx types away, the more he misses the point. The chalk circle has him beat.
Let’s place a piece of chalk on the edge of the LH coin. The chalk will be red on one half and blue on the other. The blue face of the chalk will be up against the LH coin. The pattern this creates is a blue circle on the inside and red circle on the outside from the perspective of a rotating observer on the RH coin. That’s not in contention. But notice that the observer must rotate to observe that. The observer is not in an inertial reference frame and thus it is not valid for her to make statements about the angular velocity of other objects.
But wrt to the distant point we used for our inertial sidereal reference frame the red/blue pattern is changing orientation. An observer at that point not only sees the orbital motion of the chalk piece but also sees the rotational motion of the chalk piece as well. Since this observer is stationary she is in an inertial frame reference and thus it is valid for her to make statements about the angular velocity of other objects.
BTW…using the 10s orbital period of the LH coin about the RH coin we can also conclude that the chalk piece had a sidereal angular velocity of W=0.63 rads/sec as well. The reason why the concentric red/blue circle is formed is because the orbital angular velocity matches the sidereal angular velocity. Sorry but the chalk piece is rotating on its axis too.
…and still, the chalk circle has him beat.
bdgwx: are the contents of a chalk circle drawn on the edge of a merry-go-round rotating about an axis in the center of that chalk circle, as the merry-go-round rotates?
Yes or no?
Because everything you write leads inevitably to the conclusion that you would choose “yes”, other than the fact you realize how ridiculous you would look. So instead of directly answering, you redirect to pieces of chalk, etc.
Gordon,
The moon is not in curvilinear translation.
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
The link will explain it too you.
The moon is not in curvilinear translation because it is not pointing in the same direction all the time, because it is rotating.
Correct bob, moon motion is per DREMT’s linked text in rigid body dynamics Fig. 2(b) “rotating”.
bdg…from your link…
“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”.
“Rotation about a fixed axis: In this case, all the particles of the body, except those on the axis of rotation, move along circular paths in planes perpendicular to the axis of rotation”.
***********
Please note that both definitions above re rotation about an axis and curvilinear translations are essentially the same. The difference is that with rotation the body is constrained to move in a circle whereas curvilinear translation can apply to any curved translation.
One has to be clear as to the meaning of translation. There is the translation of axes and there is the translation of a rigid body within a stationary coordinate axes. The former applies to relative motion. In the example offered by the author, he is describing the rotation of two levers about their axes with the bus along for the ride. I’d call that a poor example of curvilinear motion.
The inference here is that with a localized bus on two levers that passengers in the bus will always remain upright. That misses the more generalize situation with a space craft orbiting the Earth, wherein the passengers will always remain upright through an entire orbit. It comes down to what you mean by upright. On Earth, upright is referenced to gravitational force.
The author is myopic about his interpretation of curvilinear motion. He is applying the definition of curvilinear translation to the situation like a ferris wheel gondola motion, where the riders in each gondola remain upright throughout the curvilinear motion due to axles in the gondolas that allow them to move independently of the curved motion. I think the author completely misses the point.
The definition clearly states: “When the paths of motion are curved lines, the motion is called curvilinear translation”. They talked before that about line segments, meaning what? There are no line segments in a body only the paths followed by individual particles making up the body. You must focus on individual particles.
Here’s a different definition: “Rectilinear translation: all points in the body move in parallel straight lines of the same distance. Curvilinear translation: all points move on parallel curves of the same distance.
Page 4 of 123:
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~pphongsa/mech1/dynamics/ch4.pdf
In some examples a cannon ball shot from a cannon is given as an example of curvilinear translation. If the cannon ball had enough muzzle velocity that it could go into orbit, with the same face toward the Earth, it would be no different than the Moon.
If you took a gondola car, with riders, from a ferris wheel and put it on a flatbed truck, then the truck moved straight along a level highway, the defining characteristic would be that each particle in the car and the riders would move in a parallel, horizontal motion. That is called rectilinear translation.
For curvilinear translation the difference is that the lines are curved. What is the defining characteristic of a curve as opposed to a straight line? It is the slope of the tangent line at each point. If you take the circular path of a ferris wheel at the instant it is at 6 o’clock, the motion is rectilinear for that instant wrt ground. The rectilinear translation is defined by the horizontal ground line at 6 o’clock for rectilinear translation and the tangent ground line at that point for curvilinear translation.
One instant past 6 o’clock, what has changed? The body undergoing rectilinear translation has all of its particles continue along lines parallel to the horizontal line but it is impossible for that to occur if the body is constrained to move in a curve. One instant past 6 o’clock, you need a different reference line for the parallel motion of each particle and that reference has to be the tangent line to the curve at that point.
The author of the article is taking the meaning of translation far too rigidly. I think he is referring to the translation of axes rather than the translation of a rigid body constrained to move in a curved path. Certainly, if you drew an x-y coordinate frame through the body at 6 o’clock and had the entire frame move along a curve, then the body would move like the gondola on a ferris wheel. However, in practice you would not move the coordinate frame, rather you’d move the body relative to the coordinate frame.
In his drawing with the bus on two rotating arms, he has not defined a coordinate frame, rather, he seems to have two frames, one at each level axis. The bus is then rotating about each axis and I don’t think that is what is meant by curvilinear motion.
I mean, why would anyone define rectilinear translation so rigidly and leave the definition of curvilinear translation so non-rigidly? If CT means what he is claiming then what is the motion I am describing? It meets all of the requirements of the definition of CT and is far more practical than a bus turning on two level arms which you won’t encounter anywhere but in a circus environment.
Yup, from page 5 you just had to read the next page, but the chart on page 4 clearly distinguishes between rotation and curvilinear translation.
“Rotation motion in which all particles move in circular
paths about the axis of rotation. All lines in the body
which are perpendicular to the axis of rotation rotate
through the same angle in the same time. Circular
motion of a point helps describe the rotating motion.”
that’s what all the particles of the moon are doing, moving in circular paths about the axis of rotation.
Concentric parallel circular paths is how you have described it before I believe.
I don’t like to call circles parallels but you figure it out.
The chart I wanted to point out is on page 3.
bobd…”The link will explain it too you”.
I don’t need to have them explain it to me I studied it in depth directly in first year engineering. As I have pointed out in a reply to bdg, the definition in that article is far too myopic, curvilinear translation has a much broader meaning. I have also included an alternative explanation from an engineering textbook in my reply to bdg.
Actually, a rigid body rotating around an axis is a form of curvilinear translation. CT also applies to any curve along which a rigid body is moving.
I don’t know if you have covered this but on a circle, a line perpendicular to a radial line from the centre of the circle to a point on the circumference is called a tangent line at that point. The tangent line is the instantaneous direction a particle or the COG of a rigid body is moving at that point.
That tangent line would be the same tangent line of a circle with a portion of its circumference superimposed on the parabola. So, the curvilinear translation along any curve is equivalent to the curvilinear translation of a rotating body on a circle or a body like the Moon orbiting the Earth.
If you look around the Net enough you will see curvilinear translation defined in orbital terms. I found one such reference but it is covered by one sentence in a book and I did not think it would be convincing. All you need to define curvilinear motions is the tangent line to a point on the curve and a line normal (perpendicular) to the tangent line. With a rotating body on a fixed axis that is easy to determine. With curvilinear motion it takes more work.
bobd…sorry there Bob, it seems to have been you who posted the link to Washington State Uni. I thought it was both you and bdg who posted it. Anyway, I have already posted a lengthy reply to you but I mistakenly addressed it to Bdg.
I did not think I had been affected by covid but I may need to re-assess. ☺
I foresee bdgwx disappearing out the Back Door again…
DREMT said: are the contents of a chalk circle drawn on the edge of a merry-go-round rotating about an axis in the center of that chalk circle, as the merry-go-round rotates?
Let me be pedantic first. When you say “chalk circle” I think about the already deposited calcite material. That is obviously not orbiting or rotating because…ya know…it’s been semi-permanently affixed to the surroundings.
If what you really meant was the piece of chalk itself then yes. It is rotating wrt to its own axis as it also orbits the merry-go-round.
It’s not ridiculous at all. What’s ridiculous is believing that the chalk piece does not change its orientation as it orbits.
Let me be perfectly clear here below.
Chalk piece while in motion…yes.
Chalk material after deposition….no.
“What’s ridiculous is believing that the chalk piece does not change its orientation as it orbits.”
It does change orientation as it orbits. Because it is rotating about an axis through the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Now imagine that it were rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, but in the opposite direction to the way the merry-go-round is turning, and at exactly the same rate. Now, and only now, does the chalk piece not change its orientation as it orbits.
bdgwx, I am not talking about the chalk piece. I am talking about the atoms comprising the floor of the merry-go-round within the chalk circle. Try again.
The chalk circle is drawn on the merry-go-round, by the way. It is not drawn on the ground besides the merry-go-round.
The chalk circle and each of its particles motion is per Fig. 2(b) “rotating”.
Agreed.
When you finish the moon spinning debate say hello to La Niña
There is a bizarre North Atlantic Cold Blob (my name for it) that has been developing since August 2019 which continues to grow and get colder. Its now well over 5 million KM^2 with some large sections showing SST anomalies exceeding -5C…
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2020/anomnight.5.18.2020.gif
A strong La Nia cycle is also developing (first one in 10 years) which means falling global temps for the next 2 years.
I think the strange North Atlantic Cold Blob means the AMO will soon enter its 30-year cool cycle, and the 30-year PDO cool cycle is already overdue.
A 50-year Grand Solar Minimum also just started, which may lead to cooler global temps for many decades to come.
In 5 years, the silly CAGW scam will become a laughingstock.
I cant wait to see the excuses CAGW cultists come up with to explain falling global temps…
This SAMURAI stuff is funny every time.
Since at least 6 or 7 years, SAMURAI writes exactly the same blah blah about a strong La Nina, AMO soon entering its cool cycle, the GSM…
1. What concerns a ‘strong’ La Nina, oh dear, look at the MEI index data:
2019 0.08 0.52 0.77 0.33 0.26 0.35 0.24 0.30 0.15 0.27 0.45 0.41
2020 0.29 0.30 0.15 -0.11
I’m definitely impressed!
2. Here is the UAH6.0 LT 2.5 degree grid above this ‘bizarre North Atlantic Cold Blob’, data since Dec 1978 (I’m too lazy to search for a 2.5 degree land mask, but that wouldn’t change much):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R_9O7Qy6LNs32P9ro82rQsOmaHDHamGT/view
Trend since Jan 2010:
0.59 +- 0.16 C / decade…
Data since Aug 2019:
2019 8 0.3
2019 9 0.68
2019 10 0.66
2019 11 0.64
2019 12 0.04
2020 1 0.68
2020 2 1.65
2020 3 0.63
2020 4 -0.23
I’m definitely impressed!
When I have some time to do, I’ll download HadSST3 or HadISST1 grid data, and superpose the anomalies above those of UAH LT.
3. According to Dr Leif Svalgaard, who knows 1,000 times more about solar things than all Coolistas taken together: NO GSM expected.
*
Is SAMURAI paid by GWPF and Heartland for writing such nonsense?
J.-P. D.
Bididon-san:
1) Please show me another time when North Atlantic SST anomalies were ever this cold from the coast of New York through central Atlantic… It hasn’t happened. This is, dare I say it, “unprecedented”…
2) The unprecedented cold water is obviously being pumped up from the cold deep Atlantic, so this North Atlantic Cold Blob (NACB) runs deep and not just limited to surface SST; it’s cold allllllll the way down, which is why I think this is the start of 30-year Cold AMO cycle.
3) The NACB runs the course of the Gulf Stream, which will generate devastatingly cold temps in Europe this winter, especially for the UK..
4) There is definitely a strong La Niña cycle developing for the first time in 10 years…
5) I’ll grant you the Svensmark Effect isn’t a proven hypothesis, but we should have a good indication if it has merit if global temps start falling over the next 10 years.
The Svensmark hypothesis is…
– Low solar activity is correlated with low magnetic fields
– Low magnetic fields leads to higher GCR flux
– Higher GCR flux leads to higher low level cloud formation
– Higher low level cloud formation leads to lower temperatures
…so according to the hypothesis the Earth should have been cooling over the last 80 years as solar activity has waned.
But what happened…the Earth warmed. And not only did the Earth warm during this period but the rate at which it warmed increased decisively.
I can’t imagine how waiting 10 years is going to change the past 80.
And I don’t think it is a given that we’ve entered another grand solar minimum either. NASA did predict the min between cycles 24/25 to around April of 2020. I think we agree that this is a particularly deep solar min in terms of magnitude but so far there is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of its timing. In other words, at this time there is little to indicate that cycle 25 isn’t going to start on schedule.
Err…solar activity peaked around 1960…so I meant to say the last 60 years.
bdgwx says:
Errsolar activity peaked around 1960so I meant to say the last 60 years.
==============
What you had was in 1957 was a peak maximum cycle. But it was followed by several other old record breakers. I cranked out a graph on it about 12 years ago with some smoothing to take the cycles out and it showed the daily sunspot number peaking around 1986. File is buried on some old harddrive or I would give it to you. Number may have changed from fiddling with sunspot numbers by a NOAA scientist a few years ago trying to reconstruct inconsistencies of how observers were rating sunspots throughout the ~300 year record.
Sunspot numbers peaked in the 1950s:
https://tinyurl.com/y98qvh32
Those are the monthly values. Click on ‘data’ to see the peak value in late 1957 at 359.
With 13-month averaging for a smooth there is not much difference:
https://tinyurl.com/y98qvh32
And running a few trend lines peak to peak corroborates that the trend has been a clear reduction in the number of sunspots from the mid 1950s.
https://tinyurl.com/y6vjkwvl
But even visually it’s very clear that sun spot cycles have had generally lowering peaks since the mid 1950s, with a few very low years interspersed.
(By the way, the images at the site aren’t displaying for me unless I right click the broken picture icon top left in the frame and select load picture – never happened before)
For the purpose of a multi-decadal solar pulse you need to smooth the number into a single pulse. Even you guys are supposed to believe that ECS comes much later than TCR. If you are in denial of that. . . .ROTFLMAO!!!!
bdgwx-san:
You wrote, “Err…solar activity peaked around 1960…so I meant to say the last 60 years.”
Wrong… The strongest Grand Solar Maximum event in 11,400 years occurred from 1933~1996….
After this Grand Solar Maximum ended in mid-1996, the UAH global temp anomaly trend from mid-1996~mid 2015, was flat,, despite 25% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over this time… oooops….
The 2015/16 Super El Nino global temp spike ended the 19-year hiatus, and since then, there hasn’t been a strong La Nina cycle to offset it.
A strong La Nina is developing now, so this 2015/16 Super El Nino spike will finally be offset over the next 2 years….
ECS and TCR are incidental. When you’ve picked yourself up off the floor, try making sense, or maybe even replicate what you did before, because it looks to me like you got it wrong, or got it right and remembered it wrong. Peak sunspots were in 1957, not in the eighties, for example. Don’t need fancy smoothing or climate sensitivity to see that.
Loud braying doesn’t obscure pablum, sorry. Show something substantive.
barry says:
ECS and TCR are incidental. When youve picked yourself up off the floor, try making sense, or maybe even replicate what you did before, because it looks to me like you got it wrong, or got it right and remembered it wrong. Peak sunspots were in 1957, not in the eighties, for example. Dont need fancy smoothing or climate sensitivity to see that.
============================
No Barry the hottest solar cycle occurred in 1957. If the climate response time and time to climate equilibrium was instantaneous you would be right that solar peaked in 1957.
But climate response isn’t believed by anybody with any credentials whatsoever that the response is anywhere near instantaneous.
You come into a large cold room and turn the portable heater up to 10 on the scale of 10 for 10 minutes, turn it off for 10 minutes, then turn it back on again 10 at 9, and repeat down to 1, if you have any insulation in the walls and ceiling the room will continue to get warmer with each pulse of heat, very slowly like of like what we have seen in climate.
bill,
“What you had was in 1957 was a peak maximum cycle. But it was followed by several other old record breakers. I cranked out a graph on it about 12 years ago with some smoothing to take the cycles out and it showed the daily sunspot number peaking around 1986.”
What sunspot record breakers followed 1957?
No idea why you’re talking about Earth response. I replied to your post that was entirely about sunspot numbers. Your shimmy to ECS and TCR was just bizzarre.
So we’re agreed that 1957 was the peakiest peak. Fine.
So how long is the Earth lag to solar intensity changes, in your opinion?
barry says:
What sunspot record breakers followed 1957?
No idea why youre talking about Earth response. I replied to your post that was entirely about sunspot numbers. Your shimmy to ECS and TCR was just bizzarre.
So were agreed that 1957 was the peakiest peak. Fine.
So how long is the Earth lag to solar intensity changes, in your opinion?
=================================
Thats a good question Barry. Depending on how you model the greenhouse effect thats going to have a wide range of possibilities. For example, lets just say for the sake of examining the topic that cosmic radiation varies cloud cover without any instantaneous effect. So lets say all cosmic rays do is what they are confirmed to do is create tiny precursor particles in the atmosphere that could grow to the size necessary to induce condensation of water vapor. We have confirmed that cosmic rays do the former but not the latter part of the process.
So assuming as we did above that cosmic rays varies cloud cover we have to learn the process of the small ionized particles created by cosmic rays leads to actual water condensing nuclei.
How long does that take? We can’t determine that until we understand the entire process of the creation of condensing nuclei. The fact that cosmic rays produce a precursor is potentially important information in that process as all it needs to lead to is about a 1% change in the overall process.
Then after that one needs to understand the feedback process and for how long that plays out.
What is the IPCC claiming? Some effects continuing beyond the end of fossil fuel use followed by a long and drawn out additional warmth in the atmosphere for many thousands of years?
To me their is nothing to be alarmed about IPCC projections. Its clear that the immediate effects of radiation forcing is quick and estimated at about 1 degree per doubling. If anything the world has gotten better for humans in the process of some of the extended feedbacks. How much warming are we committed to? How long does it take to be realized? And how fast is the initial C14 derived decay if we stop using them?
It does seem obvious to me that if we are really concerned about this we should start building nuclear plants like tout suite. Nuclear plants may have some draw backs but history has demonstrated that they might be spectacular like an airplane crash but ultimately minor in relationship to car accidents on a passenger mile basis.
The point in all of this is adopting a wise perspective.
Well bill, at least we have some common ground to work with. I’m not alarmed by the IPCC predictions either.
bdgwx says:
The Svensmark hypothesis is
Low solar activity is correlated with low magnetic fields
Low magnetic fields leads to higher GCR flux
Higher GCR flux leads to higher low level cloud formation
Higher low level cloud formation leads to lower temperatures
so according to the hypothesis the Earth should have been cooling over the last 80 years as solar activity has waned.
==================================
to conclude that you need to know the initial state of the system in relationship to equilibrium. What you say would be true if the earth wasn’t still warming from a solar activity pulse.
=====
=====
bdgwx says:
But what happenedthe Earth warmed. And not only did the Earth warm during this period but the rate at which it warmed increased decisively.
I cant imagine how waiting 10 years is going to change the past 80.
==============
Indeed as it went through the solar activity pulse seen through the second half of the 20th century.
===========
===========
bdgwx says:
I cant imagine how waiting 10 years is going to change the past 80.
=================
I would suggest that’s a strawman. Why 10 years, why not 80?
==============
==============
bdgwx says:
And I dont think it is a given that weve entered another grand solar minimum either.
=============
I agree.
=========
=========
bdgwx says:
NASA did predict the min between cycles 24/25 to around April of 2020. I think we agree that this is a particularly deep solar min in terms of magnitude but so far there is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of its timing. In other words, at this time there is little to indicate that cycle 25 isnt going to start on schedule.
======================
No dispute there either. Except noting that each solar cycle dials up a new favorite prediction model. But they are real scientists and not in salesmanship instead, like Trenberth and Co.
bgdwx
I just read hunter’s nonsense:
” I cranked out a graph on it about 12 years ago with some smoothing to take the cycles out and it showed the daily sunspot number peaking around 1986. ”
*
Here you see what happened in 1986:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
How could anybody trust in a person cranking out a graph and ‘producing’ such absolutely nonsensical results?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
How could anybody trust in a person cranking out a graph and producing such absolutely nonsensical results?
================================
Well you have yourself there a manipulated graph creating a pulse at the beginning of a smoothed graph. But I guess you wouldn’t know one if it bit you on the behind being the obvious novice you are.
Always be suspect of smoothed graphs where the tails wag the dog. I can’t give you more sage advice than that.
If you map the entire 20th century plus what we have done so far in the 21st. You will see a 60 year pulse stick out on even the new data.
I said the data I used was before Dr. Svaalgard convinced NASA that the numbers recorded by sun watchers throughout history was not comparable. that changed the old more pronounced pulse which had cycles 19 21, and 22 as 3 of the 4 most active cycles in the entire solar record. Now those cycles rank 1,6,and 9. Big change.
I haven’t done any analysis since. I have no idea what Svaalgard did.
But regardless I just did a simple graph of a 3 cycle smoothing of solar maximums and clearly still a 60 year long pulse dominates roughly from cycle 18 through 23. Cycle 24 was so low its a good bet that the pulse is over. The pulse has a double peak and then declines over cycles 22, 23, and 24. The solar maximum for 22 was in 1989.
That all said and all the discussion on various potential feedback mechanisms (with ice probably being the slowest)I have no idea why anybody would think 3 decades of no temperature decline would be an indicator of failure of attributing solar cycles to temperature change.
However at some point I would expect the primary forcing (1/3rd) versus the secondary forcing (2/3rds) to begin to override the feedback.
I have always felt that should happen fairly soon from now if its going to happen. But that only would be with zero forcing from CO2. If CO2 makes up half the increase in forcing well the pause should probably return fairly shortly then.
As to a Grand Solar Minimum I have no opinion. I haven’t seen anybody with a good record on this. NOAA solar predictions have been all over the place like NOAA ENSO predictions. Even the heroes of the last round of all over the place solar predictions for 24 back in I think 2005 later were all over Penn and Livingston Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields as a precursor to a Grand Minimum. They reversed that position when the magnetic field trajectory reversed.
So don’t be so smug thinking you are so smart because you aren’t. You have a lot to learn. . . .and in fact we all do.
I’ve plotted a graph, given you data.
Bindidon has plotted a graph – the data is publicly available for you to plot for yourself.
But you don’t. Typical teenager, mouthes off and does no actual evidencing of claims.
‘I remember but can’t be bothered corroborating’
Wanker.
All previous versions of sunspot data have the 1957 peak above any in the 1980s. Doesn’t matter what version, what historical versions you look at. For exmaple:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/historical-sunspot-numbers-are-about-to-be-given-an-adjustment/
The adjustment made the 1980 peak higher than the 1990 peak.
So you probably remembered “raised the past” but forgot which cycle got raised above another. 1957 was consistently the peakiest peak in the record whether the data version was last year, 5 years ago, or 20 years ago.
WUWT considers the adjustment necessary. Who thought a raving anti-AGW site would thumbs-up data adjustment to correct for flaws?
But there are still some who believe any corrections are bad corrections.
hunter
” Well you have yourself there a manipulated graph creating a pulse at the beginning of a smoothed graph. But I guess you wouldn’t know one if it bit you on the behind being the obvious novice you are. ”
A manipulated graph??
Sorry hunter: the novice here, that’s you, and nobody else.
There is no smoothing anywhere in the graph, let alone would it be manipulated.
It is nothing else than a uniform, percentile-based, monthly scaling of both SSN and F10.7cm, generated in order to show to those ignorants, e.g. at WUWT who doubt about a perfect correlation of the two, that they are simply wrong.
The numbers behind the percentile plots in the graph are EXACTLY corresponding to the sources (all inks tinyURLd):
SSN Silso (Belgium):
https://tinyurl.com/yc8zhpvg
F10.7cm
https://tinyurl.com/y8p2cdlf
*
(In the percentile graph, only data till Dec 2017 was shown because at that time I still used the older, deprecated file ‘noaa_radio_flux.csv’.)
Here is a plot of the original monthly SSN data for the same period:
https://tinyurl.com/y7pk6yt8
and here is one of F10.7 Penticton:
https://tinyurl.com/y8babdud
*
Unlike Robertson (not only) in my opinion is the most ignorant person writing on this blog, you are certainly not an ignorant, hunter.
But like Robertson, you behave like an arrogant boaster.
And this is really worst, unscientific stuff:
” Number may have changed from fiddling with sunspot numbers by a NOAA scientist a few years ago trying to reconstruct inconsistencies of how observers were rating sunspots throughout the ~300 year record. ”
How can you pretend that the Belgian Silso record was ‘changed from fiddling with sunspot numbers by a NOAA scientist’ ?
That shows how, again like Robertson, you are able to discredit and denigrate the work of others, but… without being able to scientifically falsify it.
*
I lost a lot of precious time in this reply; but I know that it is never good to leave such comments – like yours above – staying in the air without clearly contradicting them.
J.-P. Dehottay
Here is ‘solar effective radiative forcing’ from Climate explorer, with a 10 y low pass filter applied.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iSolar_ERF_10yr_low-pass_box.png
Nate
” Here is ‘solar effective radiative forcing’ from Climate explorer, with a 10 y low pass filter applied. ”
Thank you.
J.-P. D.
Nate said: Here is solar effective radiative forcing from Climate explorer, with a 10 y low pass filter applied.
Wow. +0.15 W/m^2 trough-to-peak.
CO2 forcing relative to 1750 is about +2.0 W/m^2.
And the current Earth energy imbalance is hovering around +0.6 W/m^2…maybe even higher.
And notice how it peaked around 1960 at which time the oceanic heat uptake and tropospheric temperatures began warming at an even faster rate than before.
Hmm…
It’s hard to believe, but the LISIRD link lost contact to its own data.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/penticton_radio_flux/
I hope this one is a bit more solid.
From there, click on ‘Download’, and use the ‘format_time’ option as specified.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
A manipulated graph??
There is no smoothing anywhere in the graph, let alone would it be manipulated.
It is nothing else than a uniform, percentile-based, monthly scaling of both SSN and F10.7cm, generated in order to show to those ignorants, e.g. at WUWT who doubt about a perfect correlation of the two, that they are simply wrong.
The numbers behind the percentile plots in the graph are EXACTLY corresponding to the sources (all inks tinyURLd):
=======================================
OK so you didn’t intend to provide a percentile polynomial smoothing. Interesting we were talking about smoothing and you say you were comparing F10.7 radio to sunspot count even though there was no discussion of that, OK fine I may have missed what you are trying to demonstrate. Glad to here it wasn’t an argument for a solar pulse ending in the 1960’s.
=============
=============
Bindidon says:
‘How can you pretend that the Belgian Silso record was changed from fiddling with sunspot numbers by a NOAA scientist ?
That shows how, again like Robertson, you are able to discredit and denigrate the work of others, but without being able to scientifically falsify it.
I lost a lot of precious time in this reply; but I know that it is never good to leave such comments like yours above staying in the air without clearly contradicting them.’
==========================================
Not sure what you contradicted. I said: ‘I havent done any analysis since. I have no idea what Svaalgard did.’
That doesn’t sound like any kind of denigration to me Bindinon. Perhaps you are being overly sensitive.
Nate says:
Here is solar effective radiative forcing from Climate explorer, with a 10 y low pass filter applied.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iSolar_ERF_10yr_low-pass_box.png
=====================================
thanks for that Nate. Matches beautifully with the 5 minute smoothing test I ran on solar maximums in a post above and said:
‘But regardless I just did a simple graph of a 3 cycle smoothing of solar maximums and clearly still a 60 year long pulse dominates roughly from cycle 18 through 23. Cycle 24 was so low its a good bet that the pulse is over. The pulse has a double peak and then declines over cycles 22, 23, and 24. The solar maximum for 22 was in 1989.’
bdgwx says:
Wow. +0.15 W/m^2 trough-to-peak.
CO2 forcing relative to 1750 is about +2.0 W/m^2.
And the current Earth energy imbalance is hovering around +0.6 W/m^2maybe even higher.
And notice how it peaked around 1960 at which time the oceanic heat uptake and tropospheric temperatures began warming at an even faster rate than before.
Hmm
==================================
bdgwx nobody believes solar causes warming via simple warming from radiant heat. However, what we don’t know are the effects of a 10% increase in high frequency light say on daytime evaporation which is a factor you don’t divide by 4 and under the main sunbeams amounts to .6w/m2 of all light.
And thats measured effect bdgwx not modeled effect. And of course there are few other magnetic and cosmic theory angles laying around also. Ultimately bdgwx we do need an explantion for the large amount of warming seen in the first half of the 20th century. It had to have come from something other than CO2.
sorry should have said ‘significant warming’ rather than just warming.
SAMURAI
” There is definitely a strong La Niña cycle developing for the first time in 10 years… ”
Where did you obtain any proof for that from?
Just have a look at
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
and you will have to admit that the preconditions to reach anything looking like 2010 hardly could be found anywhere else than in the head of Cooling fantasists.
That La Niñ is about to go up in the fall: no doubt!
*
As said, I downloaded the SST part of HadISST1 and will show tomorrow afternoon CEST time how that looks like.
*
Unfortunately, JMA’s OHC exists as grid only in hard coded GRIB binary data, so I can’t control what you pretend.
J.-P. D.
Your claim the temperature should be declining from the 60s because the solar cycles did is totally false .
Despite the small decline All the 6 solar cycles after the peak in 60s were still higher then all the 6 solar cycles before the peak
Obviously the effect is cumulative and the energy cannot balance instantly , is this your inability to grasp the concept how climate works of just the usual alarmist shystering, I can’t tell
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1994/
You are right Eben only the hard core deniers deny there just transpired a Grand solar Maximum. Thats been well understood for probably 3 decades now.
bill said: You are right Eben only the hard core deniers deny there just transpired a Grand solar Maximum.
I’m honestly not aware of even a single person who denies that the Modern Grand Maximum happened.
bill said: Thats been well understood for probably 3 decades now.
I’m shocked. So this is the one thing that science knows something about? I was not expecting that. I honestly thought your automatic response to all things science has learned was to dismiss it.
So your hypothesis is that there is a multidecadal lag of temperature on Earth responding to changes in sunspot numbers.
This will be news to everyone, and especially critics of AGW, who have been relying on a much tigher respinse time. Kristian who visits here from time to time is telling us that insolation trands are key, and he will be disappointed to learn that the nice correlation he gets with certain data sets in real time are spurious because ‘the effect is cumulative and the energy cannot balance instantly’.
While there is some truth that the Earth system takes time to respond to different drivers of its temperature and other dynamics, the time scales differ widely depending on the driver. Thus, when day breaks and the sun starts rising, it doees not continue to get colder for an hor or so. The temperature response in near-instantaneous.
Starting with that, can you figure out how long it takes the Earth to respond to solar radiation maxima that happen every 11 years?
For a bit of help, why don’t you refer to the graphic you linked for us and see how long temperatures take to respond to, say, the grand solar minimum that coincidentally occurred at almost exactly the same time as the little ice age?
The Sun and temperature correlation is neither instant or perfect, Only lose and general because it is just one of many variables and cycles. I have studies and charts but not wasting my time trying to convince warming religious kooks. It is for me to learn how it works and put my predictions on the record, You just go on and keep projecting your straight lines into 2100, see how it works out
You read blogs. Don’t park your BuS here/
You’ve implied a 60 year lag, so you and I will be safely dead before we get to check your insightful forecasts.
barry says: Thus, when day breaks and the sun starts rising, it doees not continue to get colder for an hor or so. The temperature response in near-instantaneous.
==============================
LOL! Barry if you have one of those 1500watt radiant heaters laying around the house for using to keep your feet warm after getting out of the shower, you might want to trade it in for a 2 watt heater and see what that does to response time.
There are a lot of reasons why response time might be delayed. The major one is feedback is estimated to be twice that of the initial radiant forcing. And that has been judged to come from such things as a reduction in snow and ice reflectivity. Takes a while for ice sheets to melt. Another major item is the oceans cover 3/4ths of the planet and they don’t respond at the crack of dawn. Land temperatures where you look respond fast, like 20F or more between day and night. Climate on the ocean responds by a couple of degrees and loses most of what it gains from deeper water mixing on a varying time scales from minutes to seasons to even years.
Didn’t read the rest of my post, huh bill?
Of course there is a lag to long term solar changes (as opposed to instantaneous diurnal changes), but Eben wouldn’t know what they were if they coupled with him and had offspring.
Bindidon says:
Just have a look at
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
and you will have to admit that the preconditions to reach anything looking like 2010 hardly could be found anywhere else than in the head of Cooling fantasists.
======================================
La Nina looking like climate cooling? Crazy stuff. La Ninas tend to cool the ocean surface and thus have an effect on global temperatures. But its not considered to be a climate effect. Its something you smooth out of the data to get to a climate trend.
My own opinion loosely held is you can’t judge anything to be climate warming or climate cooling until you know what nature is doing. In other words you need to understand the system to. . . .uh. . . .understand the system. Seems rather fundamental to me.
Eben
You have been answered many times concerning your cumulative BS.
Like Robertson, you never take replies into consideration.
J.-P. D.
Hello La Nina!
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
A move from 10 up to 30 % indeed is somewhat significant.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
The la nina is being predicted this fall by NOAA. See page 25.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
This was all completely predictable based on the 3.6, 11 year enso cycles. ENSO follows the 1/3rd harmonic of the solar cycle, with an additional down beat at 11 years offset from the solar min by 1/3 solar cycle. Because this is an 11 year down beat, this should be a strong la nina with several surges lasting 1 1/2 years. The exact timing down to the month remains about as predictable as the stock market however admittedly.
If you want to see how the so called experts have no clue where ENSO will go just look what they put out
The range of their models just 6 month ahead is so wide it has no predictive value whatsoever
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Scott, why do you ignore:
1. The advice of the authority you are linking?
2. The graph on page 24 showing a range of international models, which is what the authority you are linking rests its forecast on?
You desire a la Nina. We get that. But can’t you at least pretend to have a more neutral outlook?
Eben, you’re almost there. All the ENSO monitoring groups advise that forecasts during NH Spring are more uncertain than at other times of the year. The wide spread of models heading into NH Autumn is quite typical for this time of year. Perhpas if you actually bothered to learn anything you would already know that the forecasting groups are weay ahead of you on understanding the limitations of their modeling.
I have a question about the UAH dataset maybe someone here can answer. Is each area of the grid measured at the same time each month? The reason I ask, is I was just thinking about the lunar cycle and how that might have an influence on the data gathering (not significant I don’t think) I’m wondering if it is measurable, but I need more information about how exactly the measurements are taken before I spend time on it. The new moon for instance is moving earlier and earlier each month. There are 12.36 lunar cycles in a year. It means every 3 years roughly there could be a detectable cycle in the data possibly.
No. They use polar orbiting satellites. That means as the satellites sweep from pole to pole the Earth rotates underneath them. Not only do they not appear above the same location at the same time, but since Earth’s sidereal rotation period is out of phase with the Moon’s orbital period there are differences in the positioning of these satellites wrt to the Moon’s phases.
This is also a good time to point out that neither UAH or nor RSS have homogeneous coverage of the Earth at any given moment in time. The coverage area is continuously changing as the satellites move in their orbits and Earth rotates underneath them. When integrating the data over the course of one month I believe you do end up with good homogeneity, but that is a product of extending your observation period. And I don’t know the exact details of how UAH is homogenizing the data so there may be some interesting caveats to consider. I’d be interested in having Dr. Spencer explain the process in detail.
The only datasets that have complete homogeneous coverage natively are reanalysis. That means each snapshot of a layer at any given moment in time has 100% areal coverage. They accomplish this via 3D-VAR or 4D-VAR assimilation of the data.
Thank you bdgwx. You know what would be interesting, to see the data for just the grid that my state is in and what time / day the snap shot was taken over the complete data set since 1980. I would like to hear Dr Spencer explain the process in detail as well.
the satellite UAH is currently using essentially scans the nearly the entire surface every day. A polar orbit period of 99 minutes and a scanning swath of 1400miles(2300km) leaves little of the earth unscanned.
Roy is very accomodating. Send him an email which is available on the front page and he will give you some pointers.
bdgwx
I think you should explain Scott R how much time it takes for the satellites to visit exactly e.g. the same 2.5 degree grid position again.
J.-P. D.
bdg…”Your arguments are characterized by making at least 1 and possibly all 3 of the following mistakes.
– Conflating orbital revolution with sidereal rotation.
– Trying to redefine “rotation” as something other than how NASA and the rest of us defines it for astronomical bodies.
– You are a using a non-inertial reference frame”.
****
-no such thing as sidereal rotation. You’re confusing sidereal time with the Earth rotation about its axis. Sidereal time is simply the use of a star position with which to reference one complete rotation of the Earth.
-NASA et al must use rotation as defined scientifically, not in a manner they dream up. In a similar manner, Einstein redefined space and time to suit his thought-experiment illusion about the speed of light. Can’t do that in science, only science fiction.
-it does not matter which inertial frame is used, the Moon does not rotate about its axis.
bdg…ps…even if you use the background stars as a reference, the Moon still does not rotate about it’s axis. Every particle on the Moon is moving in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre, or the barycentre within the earth, therefore the near side face can never rotate about its axis, which is moving parallel to it.
That’s basically correct. The Moon is not rotating about its axis. It only “appears” to be. The “chalk circle” on the floor of a merry-go-round is a clear model.
I’ve seen this debate going on for about 12 years on various blogs. Every time, the effort is made to change definitions. Just in this short thread, they have attempted to change the definition of both “rotating about its axis” and “orbiting”. The definitions can not be changed, but for some reason, they do not care.
The chalk circle on the merry-go-round is changing its orientation so its still rotating. Even the particles on the chalk circle are individually changing orientation so they are also rotating. Again…wrt to an inertial reference frame that goes the center of mass of the body in question.
It’s not a great model because the Moon is not a ring that wraps around the Earth. It is a cohesive sphere.
The definition of rotation for astronomical bodies has always been in reference to the angular velocity computed from a reference frame in which the radius r=0 is fixed to the center of mass of the body and angle a=0 is fixed to distant point.
“The chalk circle on the merry-go-round is changing its orientation so its still rotating. Even the particles on the chalk circle are individually changing orientation so they are also rotating…”
…about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not about an axis going through the center of the chalk circle.
The chalk circle IS a great model, bdgwx. Its simple and easy to understand.
The chalk circle is not rotating, it is only riding on a revolving surface. There is only one motion, that of the merry-go-round. When the revolving motion is stopped, all motion stops. The chalk circle does not continue appearing to rotate.
If you believe you can distort the model by claiming the chalk circle is not a sphere, then use an earth globe, mounted to the floor of the merry-go-round. Same thing. The globe will appear to be rotating, but it is just an illusion. There is only one motion involved.
The definition of rotating about an axis is not based on angular velocity referenced to some distance frame of reference. For rotating about an axis, the reference point is the axis though center of mass. You keep trying to alter the definitions.
One commenter here is even trying to claim that since Moons orbit around Earth causes it to experience sunrises and sunsets, that means Moon is orbiting about its axis! Another tries to claim that the outside surface of Moon has a greater angular speed than the inside surface! (He doesnt understand that he is using the wrong reference for angular speed. He is using Earth, not the Moons center of mass.) And yet another is trying to change the definition of orbiting, as you are trying to change the definition of rotating about an axis. This ongoing debate (now 12 years for me) clearly reveals the difference between science and religion.
“One commenter here is even trying to claim that since Moon’s orbit around Earth causes it to experience sunrises and sunsets, that means Moon is orbiting about its axis!”
No such claim ClintR, rigid body dynamics science means Moon is rotating about its own axis enabling sun rises and sun sets. The moon is orbiting the earth. These are two distinct axes.
“The chalk circle is not rotating,”
The chalk circle on the merry-go-round is both orbiting an external axis and rotating about its own (intersecting) axis as in DREMT’s text Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
If the chalk circle were only translating and not rotating, then the rigid body science is in DREMT’s text Fig. 2(a) “translation”. The chalk circle on a merry-go-round would then have to be mounted on a mechanism that keeps it from rotating on its own (intersecting) axis, thus only translating & there is no such mechanism.
When they think a chalk circle drawn at the edge of a merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis, it is time to just stop the debate, and laugh at them.
There really is no need to continue the debate since readers need only pay attention to DREMT’s rigid body dynamics science of DREMT’s agreed text Fig. 2(b) “rotation” no matter the entertainment and confusion DREMT provides in comments about merry-go-rounds with chalk circles.
☺️
<ClintR said: The definition of rotating about an axis is not based on angular velocity referenced to some distance frame of reference. For rotating about an axis, the reference point is the axis though center of mass. You keep trying to alter the definitions.
I’ve made it pretty clear in my posts what reference frame I’m using. Read what I type very carefully.
Rotation is quantified by angular velocity on a reference frame where radius r=0 is fixed onto the center of mass and the angle a=0 is pointed towards a distant object. That is an inertial reference frame. This is the definition that everyone is using for astronomical bodies. It is not controversial.
The Moon’s angular velocity on the sidereal reference frame (pointed towards a distant star) is 0.23 rads/day. The Moon’s angular velocity on the synodic reference frame (pointed towards the Sun) is 0.21 rads/day. Therefore the Moon is rotating.
ClintR said: He doesnt understand that he is using the wrong reference for angular speed
Tell us what reference frame you want to use and we’ll tell you whether it is inertial and what the angular velocity is on it.
What we need…
– Use polar coordinates in the form (r,a).
– Identify where you are putting the radius r=0 value.
– Identify where you are pointing the angle a=0 value.
“Rotation is quantified by angular velocity on a reference frame where radius r=0 is fixed onto the center of mass and the angle a=0 is pointed towards a distant object. That is an inertial reference frame”
…and if you used such a reference frame on the chalk circle, you could say that the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis. Which it isn’t. It’s a chalk circle drawn onto a moving platform. The objective reality is that the platform is moving, the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
So that proves that your “r=0 fixed onto the center of mass” (center of the chalk circle) reference frame gives misleading results.
So now, you move on from that…
bdgwx, you’re still trying to reference to a distant star. That’s not the correct reference for “orbiting about an axis”. The correct reference is the “axis of rotation”. In this case, the “axis of rotation” is an axis through Moon’s center of mass.
DREMT,
The center of mass of a homogeneous ring is the point in the void in the very middle. That’s our radius r=0 point.
For the orientation of our reference frame let’s set angle a=0 pointed due north. This is an inertial reference frame (with a slight caveat that we can discuss if you want) because it is pointed toward a distant object.
If the merry-go-round returns to the same point at which it started every 6s and turns clockwise then at 1s a specific point on the chalk circle will be at angle a=60, 2s at a=120, 3s at a=180, 4s at a=240, 5s at a=300, and 6s at a=0. So the chalk circle is reorienting in this reference frame by 60 degrees per second. That is 1.05 rads/sec. The chalk circle has non-zero angular velocity. Therefore it is rotating in this inertial reference frame.
ClintR said: bdgwx, youre still trying to reference to a distant star. Thats not the correct reference for orbiting about an axis.
First…we are discussing whether the Moon rotates on its own axis; not whether it is “orbiting about an axis”.
Second…if you don’t orient your reference frame to an object outside the system you are analyzing then your reference frame is not inertial. You must use an inertial reference frame to determine whether an object is orbiting about some axis or rotating on its own axis.
I’ll ask again…
Define the reference frame you want to use by specifying the radius r=0 and angle a=0 points via a polar coordinate system (r,a) and we’ll be able to tell you whether that frame is inertial or not and what the angular velocity of the Moon is in that frame. We cannot answer these questions until you tell us what frame you’re using.
bdgwx, in physics, if you choose the wrong reference frame, you get the wrong answer.
You keep choosing the wrong reference frame.
You just proved my point, bdgwx.
☺️
ClintR said: You keep choosing the wrong reference frame.
Then set me straight.
I’ll ask again…
Define the reference frame you want to use by specifying the radius r=0 and angle a=0 points via a polar coordinate system (r,a) and well be able to tell you whether that frame is inertial or not and what the angular velocity of the Moon is in that frame.
DREMT said: You just proved my point, bdgwx.
Is your point that the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis?
If so then I agree. It is definitely rotating on its own axis because it has angular velocity wrt to an inertial frame that is attached to that axis.
bdgwx,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475255
Glad to set you straight, bdgwx:
The correct reference is the “axis of rotation”. In this case, the “axis of rotation” is an axis through Moon’s center of mass.
ClintR,
Great. You’ve chosen the axis you want to consider.
Now define the reference frame you want to use to analyze that axis.
We need the radius r=0 and angle a=0 reference points in the polar coordinate system (r,a). Where is radius r=0 located? Where is angle a=0 pointed towards?
“The chalk circle IS a great model, bdgwx. Its simple and easy to understand.”
For most people. Just not bdgwx.
E. Swanson says:
>Gordo,( Clint, DRsEMT, et al.)<blockquote?
-NASA et al must use rotation as defined scientifically, not in a manner they dream up.
==============================
thats correct Swanson. They get it! They have a huge database to deal with without knowing what is tidal locked and what is not, so they pick an arbitrary view point so that their database doesn't apply the wrong parameter on the basis of what controls the rotation.
But this discussion is about reality not an arbitrary viewpoint for applying consistency to a database. Things get confusing when you start classifying stuff in different ways. And strictly from a binary database point of view if you start doing that you lose design flexibility in improving your database.
And astronomers get that!
Bottom line is you have two kinds of rotation. One is a rotation currently controlled gravitationally by another body and another less well understood one where there is no visible source controlling the rotation but back in time there must have been one. So what did earth get spun off of?
“But this discussion is about reality not an arbitrary viewpoint for applying consistency to a database.”
Exactly. Good point. And the reality is, the chalk circle physically cannot rotate on its own axis. I mean…it’s literally just been drawn onto the merry-go-round. It cannot therefore move independently of the merry-go-round. How brainwashed do these people have to be!?
DREMT said: It cannot therefore move independently of the merry-go-round.
Agreed. But I don’t think anyone was arguing that its rotation on its own axis was independent of the merry-go-round. The whole reason why its angular velocity about its own axis is what it is is because it is fixed to the merry-go-round.
That still doesn’t change the fact that it is non-zero angular velocity wrt to its own axis in an inertial frame.
Which proves why your chosen reference frame leads you to erroneous conclusions. If something cannot physically rotate on its own axis, it cannot be rotating on its own axis.
So now an inertial frame is not valid for assessing rotational motion?
Do you apply the same logic for assessing linear motion?
Well, it did lead you to conclude a chalk circle is rotating on its own axis…
bdgwx says:
So now an inertial frame is not valid for assessing rotational motion?
Do you apply the same logic for assessing linear motion?
==========================
come on bdgwx. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Of course its valid because its a psuedovector analysis and translatable to mirror images and other perspectives; unlike true vectors like linear velocity.
Well ok then. The sidereal frame is inertial. It is also fixed onto the center of mass of Moon…ya know…its own axis. And in that frame the angular velocity of all points on the Moon is 0.23 rads/day which gives it a period of 27.3 days. Since it is an inertial frame and we’ve agreed that inertial frames are valid to assess motion whether rotational or transnational I have no choice but to conclude that the Moon is rotating. And it’s not like I’m coming up with a different answer than everyone else. My answer matches that of NASA, IAU, and every other reputable astronomer or astronomical institution.
The trouble is that your way of looking at it leads you to conclude a chalk circle is rotating on its own axiswhich is obviously wrong.
bdgwx says:
DREMT said: It cannot therefore move independently of the merry-go-round.
Agreed. But I dont think anyone was arguing that its rotation on its own axis was independent of the merry-go-round. The whole reason why its angular velocity about its own axis is what it is is because it is fixed to the merry-go-round.
That still doesnt change the fact that it is non-zero angular velocity wrt to its own axis in an inertial frame.
=====================================
bdgwx you always have an interesting perspective. Let me ask you this.
If the chalk circle is spinning on its axis as the merry-go-round goes around within the intertial frame you want to put it in, does it have effects in stopping the merry-go-round?
You claim an inertial force separate from the merry-go-round. How is the force created and stopped?
I realize there isn’t much mass in the chalk but why limit the forces here to just the chalk. In your world we could assign and infinite number of rotating disks on the surface of the merry-go-round disk and the net result of it all is zero.
I am interested in how you resolve that dilemma in your mind.
>Gordo,( Clint, DRsEMT, et al.)<blockquote?
-NASA et al must use rotation as defined scientifically, not in a manner they dream up.
and..
Just in this short thread, they have attempted to change the definition of both rotating about its axis and orbiting. The definitions can not be changed, but for some reason, they do not care.
Yeah, all the commenters who claim the Moon doesn’t rotate fail to understand rigid body dynamics, a well studied area in physics since Isaac Newton. For a body in free space, rotation must be DEFINED by measurements relative to an inertial reference frame, which is to say, a reference which is NOT ROTATING.
When such a reference frame is employed, the Moon clearly rotates once each orbit. That’s science, not religion or some other ignorant delusion.
…and the chalk circle proves you wrong.
DRsEMT,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475251
Swanson,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475255
Since the Moon does not rotate about its axis according to Gordon, the Apollo 15 landing site must never experience a sun rise or sun set. Which is it Gordon, the Apollo 15 landing site is always in 1) daylight or 2) continual night?
Here is an overhead stop action view from sunrise to sunset at Apollo 15 site. According to Gordon and ClintR claims, the moon is not rotating so how can they explain the lunar day shadow movements?
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15FlagDeployment.html
As the moon orbits Earth, its Sun-facing side changes. On Earth, we call this “phases of the Moon”. But Earth only sees one side, as Moon is not rotating about its axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
The phrase “not rotating” is not found on that wiki page ClintR, the actual shadows in the Apollo site pictures show it is ClintR that is wrong.
I can lead a mule to water, but I can’t make him drink.
Right, the mule may not be thirsty. You can show some commenters the truth but you can’t make them think.
☺️
You guys are funny with this moon debate. Seems like arguing semantics sometimes. I tend to side with NOT describing the moon’s movement using rotation about it’s own axis, even though to the observer on the surface you would have sun rise and sun set. Folks in the 1500s thought the sun went around the earth also. The reason for the day / night cycle on the moon is completely different to that of the earth. The moon is tidally locked to the earth. It’s motion is best described by it’s elliptical orbit, with particles on the far side of the moon making slightly larger elliptical orbits than those on the near side. If you were to try to model this using only rotation about the moons axis, you might get a close estimate, but it would not take into account the elliptical nature of the moons orbit and detailed measurements would prove that is not the correct way to describe the motion as the speed of the rotation to the observer on the moon would slow during the moons aphelion and speed up during it’s perihelion.
Scott R, without rotation once per orbit the moon would only be translating thus showing entire surface to earth, Fig. 2(a) “translation” in DREMT’s text.
Your observed slowing and speeding up is because the Moon’s rotation on its own axis as in DREMT’s text 2(b) “rotation” sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position, this is called lunar libration from changes in observers perspective.
☺️
Ball4,
Let’s pretend that you are a developing intelligent species on a habitable moon, tidally locked to it’s host planet. You have lived out your entire life on the far side of the moon, conducting scientific research on the universe. You don’t even realize the host planet exists! Imagine the break thru when you realize the sun’s motion is speeding up and slowing down. You would only then realize there is a host planet. Imagine traveling to the far side of the planet for the first time to prove your theory. Could be a sci-fi movie perhaps?
The delta of this speed change is proportional to the eccentricity of the moon’s orbit. You can not describe the motion of the moon without considering that. Since the moon’s rotation (regardless of frame of reference) requires the moon’s eccentricity to be completely described, we should not describe it’s motion as motion about it’s own axis + lunar libration. In fact, to the early observer on the moon, perhaps they could calculate the eccentricity using the speed changes.
Imagine the break thru when you realize the sun’s motion is not around your habitat as the center of the universe but your habitat is actually orbiting the sun at the center and rotating on its own axis for day/night. Then the puzzling retrograde motion of the observable planets makes sense and you begin to pick up clues there could be a ninth planet observable by discovering your habitat might not be flat.
Then being brave enough, and funded by your majestic ruler wanting more empires, to try to walk off the edge and you discover Earth! Entire continents, states, cities would be named Scott R.
haha Ball4. I’d more than likely name them after my kids. If only faster than light speed were possible we could go find what these new planets really look like, maybe even find a habitable moon. Alas, we can barely break out of our solar system and the James Webb keeps getting delayed. In the mean time society spends it’s time blowing each other up, arguing for the lessor of two evils on facebook while our money is being devalued, and we are turned into slaves without chains to our debt based economic system. In the mean time we are slowly destroying our farmland thru unsustainable practices, and putting everyone into a completely unnecessary lock down right before a GSM hits. Isn’t it grand?
I like the one too where the gov. borrows $1200 from all of us then sends us each $1200. Your government at work spinning on its own axis.
Haha Ball4… well played.
RSS went from 0.84 in March to 0.75 in April. That’s a similar change with UAH.
It is.
Wonder if any noobs will still be having trouble with the baseline differences….
I’d like to try to clarify how astronomers define rotation for astronomical bodies. I’m hoping this will put the issue to rest.
Rotation is quantified by the angular velocity or momentum on an inertial reference frame fixed to the center of mass of the body. If using polar coordinates (r,a) you fix radius r=0 onto the axis that goes through the center of mass and you point angle a=0 towards a distant object. There are two common orientations for this reference frame. The synodic reference frame has angle a=0 pointed towards the Sun. The sidereal reference frame has angle a=0 pointed towards a known location like a distant star, feature on the CMB, or feature on the ICRF. The angular velocity on these reference frames is 0.21 rads/day and 0.23 rads/day respectively. This is not controversial. Everybody accepts and uses this definition.
The Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27.3 days.
The Moon’s synodic rotation period is 29.5 days.
The Moon’s earthly revolution period is 27.3 days.
The Moon’s solar revolution period is 365.25 days.
https://tinyurl.com/y4qqeoo3
Reference for “rotating about the axis” is the axis through center of mass.
The sidereal frame is through the Moon’s center of mass.
The synodic frame is through the Moon’s center of mass.
bdgwx, “sidereal” and “synodic” considerations for Moon are referenced to orbit around Earth, relative to Sun.
Adding layers of complexity is a cover for the fact that the simple chalk circle blows your case.
ClintR,
No. That is not correct. The sidereal and synodic frames are where I said they are. This is not controversial in anyway. It is what it is.
Now if you want to consider another frame of reference then by all means define it. We just need the polar coordinates (r,a) where radius r=0 is located at and angle a=0 is pointed towards. You can even make up your own term to describe it if you like. Though I will say some of these frames already have names in common use.
It is correct.
You’re adding layers of complexity to cover for the fact that the simple chalk circle blows your case.
Some call it “desperation”.
There’s no complexity here. It is as simple as it can possibly get.
Those are indeed the definitions of sidereal and synodic rotation. I didn’t make those definitions up. They are agreed upon by every astronomer and are not controversial in any way.
BTW…the chalk circle has nothing to do with it. I don’t mind discussing the chalk circle though. You just tell me what reference frame you want to use and I’ll tell you what the angular velocity is in that frame, whether the frame is inertial or non-inertial, and whether the frame can be used to make statements about rotation.
bdgwx, you have already said you think the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis. You can’t back away from that now. You have already made that mistake. So that’s that.
That’s not a mistake, it is what DREMT agreed to in his text Fig. 2(b) “rotation”. It is DREMT trying to back out of what DREMT wrote. bdgwx remains consistent in his comments.
The chalk circle is rotating on its own axis. The reason is because when you fix radius r=0 to a point that is equidistant from all inner points on the chalk circle and angle a=0 pointing north you get a non-zero angular velocity. My selection of r=0 is the chalk circles center of mass (assuming the chalk circle’s mass is homogeneous) and my selection of a=0 oriented toward a distant point makes my reference frame inertial. I can rightfully claim that the chalk circle as a whole is rotating on its own axis. In fact, I don’t even have a choice in the matter because that’s just the way the math works out.
BTW…even though it is moot the Moon is not a ring that is wrapped around the Earth. It is a cohesive sphere. That makes the chalk circle analogy sub-optimal. I still like analogies though so if you want to discuss the chalk circle further that is fine by me.
“The chalk circle is rotating on its own axis”
No, it is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
DREMT said: No, it is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
Where do you think the chalk circle’s center of mass is?
In the center of the circle.
You understand that the chalk circle is not drawn around the center of the merry-go-round, right? It is just a small circle, drawn near to the edge. Far away from the center of the merry-go-round.
DREMT,
Yes. I know. It’s a ring. The center of mass of a ring is in the center of the ring. Yes, that also happens to be the center of mass of the merry-go-round. I can’t help that. This was your thought experiment.
And I’ve pointed out already that this equivalence between the center of mass of the two bodies in question in your thought experiment is not at all like the Earth-Moon system.
I personally would have taped a circular piece of bi-colored chalk to the edge of the merry-go-round. The chalk deposits would trace out both the orbit and the rotation of the chalk piece and would have been a more realistic thought experiment since the center of mass of both bodies in question are different. But that’s just me.
There is no equivalence between the two centers of mass.
Do you actually read what I write? The center of mass of the chalk circle is distant from the center of mass of the merry-go-round. The chalk circle is near the edge of the merry-go-round. Say the merry-go-round has a diameter of 2m. The chalk circle has a diameter of 10cm. It is located 70cm away from the center of the merry-go-round.
DREMT,
Fair enough. I thought you drew the circle around the whole merry-go-round. You drew the circle not around the perimeter of the merry-go-round but only near the edge and only on a small section of the merry-go-round.
And yes…that is a better match to the Earth-Moon system.
Doesn’t matter though. When you set r=0 through the center of mass of that circle and angle a=0 pointed north every point on the circle has angular velocity in that reference frame. When the circle itself is on the north side of the mgr it is the outer edge that is closest to north and when the circle itself is on the south side of the mgr it is the inner edge of the circle that is closest to north. The circle is changing orientation wrt to this inertial reference frame.
Still rotates…
It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
It is revolving around the center of the merry-go-round and rotating on its own axis. That’s just the way the math works out for both of those inertial reference frames.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475221
“I’m hoping this will put the issue to rest.”
You think a chalk circle drawn on the edge of a merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis. That has put the issue to rest. And you will likely never understand why (because you don’t listen, because you’re indoctrination is so absolute).
Yeah, it’s hopeless to try to discuss the Moon’s rotation when folks don’t understand dynamics. The chalk circle on a merry-go-round doesn’t appear to rotate when the rotation is defined in a reference frame (the merry-go-round) which is itself rotating. Put your feet back down on the Earth (i.e., use a locally non-rotating reference frame)and the chalk circle clearly rotates once for every turn of the ride.
The Moon rotates once each orbit. Duh…
The chalk circle is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. Great, now I get to laugh at Swanson, too.
DRsEMT, No, a “reference frame” is a coordinate system, not an “axis”. The reference frame fixed to the merry-go-round could be placed at the middle of the chalk circle and the results would be the same. One coordinate would point to the center of the merry-go-round, the second would point either up or down and the third would be orthogonal to those first two. In that reference frame, the chalk circle would not rotate.
So, what do you think happens with geo-stationary satellites, bright guy? They always present the same “face” (antennas, cameras, etc) to the Earth, right? Don’t they rotate once an orbit?
Swanson, instead of putting words in my mouth I did not say, pay attention to what I am saying:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475260
E. Swanson, are you unable to construct a coordinate system, given an axis?
And if a satellite is always facing Earth, it is “orbiting”, not “rotating about its axis”.
ClintR,
It is impossible to construct a coordinate system from just the axis alone.
For polar coordinates (r,a) we need two pieces of information.
– The location where the radius r=0 resides.
– The direction where the angle a=0 is pointed towards.
Kindly provide these data points. We will then compute the Moon’s angular velocity in that frame and tell you whether or not that frame is inertial.
ClintR said: And if a satellite is always facing Earth, it is orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
Nope. It would have to be rotating. That’s just how the math works out.
Now, if the Hubble Space Telescope were locked onto a target for a long exposure image it would have to stop rotating. But it would still be orbiting. As a result observers on Earth would see all faces of the HST. Again…that’s just the way the math works out.
When you have rotational and orbital motions both in play the spin-orbit resonance dictates how observes inside the orbit perceive the orientation of the body.
Here you go, bdgwx:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system
Just put the origin at Moon’s center of gravity, and the z-axis perpendicular to Moon’s orbital plane.
Thanks for acknowledging you didn’t know how to do it.
Again, if a satellite always has one side facing Earth, it is orbiting, not rotating about its axis. Like Scott R. (no relation) said, you guys are funny.
ClintR, One must specify 3 vectors to define the coordinate system. Selecting one as perpendicular to the orbital plane does not fix the other two, except that they must then be in the orbital plane. Which vectors would you select? I would suggest using the semi-major axis of the orbit, the result would be that the Moon rotates.
E. Swanson, the more you mention coordinate systems the more you indicate you have no knowledge of same.
And now you’re revealing your ineptness concerning angular velocity.
In the lasting words of Scott R (no relation), “You guys are funny”.
ClintR said: Just put the origin at Moon’s center of gravity, and the z-axis perpendicular to Moon’s orbital plane.
Not good enough. All we know right now is that Z goes through the Moon’s center of mass and that it is perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane. That’s a start, but we still need to know where X and Y are pointing.
ClintR said: E. Swanson, the more you mention coordinate systems the more you indicate you have no knowledge of same.
All we’re asking for is for you to define your position and orientation of your coordinate system. Then and only then will we be able to calculate the angular velocity and tell you whether it is inertial or not. That’s just how the math and geometry of the situation works.
May I make a suggestion though? Use polar coordinates because that’s how angular velocity is natively defined. Is the system defined at the wiki page with (radius, theta, phi) acceptable to you? If so where is radius=0 located? What is theta=0 pointed at? What is phi=0 pointed at?
ClintR
I do not know your mind type. I know Gordon Robertson and DREMT are not open minded but contrarian so they believe any bogus idea as long as it goes against established science.
But you are wrong and I hope open minded enough to realize that and not delve into mindless cult contrarian religion.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/10/03/how-does-the-iss-travel-around-the-earth/#13b7c67c141f
The ISS has to rotate on its own axis to keep orientation facing the Earth. It rotates as it revolves. You are shown to be incorrect and I hope it alters your thinking.
I quit trying to convince the two contrarians on this topic.
Here is a video that logically shows why it must rotate as it orbits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk
I would align the x-axis tangent to Moon’s orbit, with positive x in direction of Moon travel. (That makes y-axis facing Earth.) As Moon orbits, there would be no rotation about the z-axis, as we (many of us) already knew.
It’s almost as if you’re really trying to learn. I wonder how long this will last?
ClintR said: I would align the x-axis tangent to Moons orbit, with positive x in direction of Moon travel. (That makes y-axis facing Earth.) As Moon orbits, there would be no rotation about the z-axis, as we (many of us) already knew.
Perfect. And in polar coordinates (radius, theta, phi) this would be radius=0 is fixed to the center of mass of the Moon, theta=0 perpendicular to the orbit, and phi=0 points in the direction of motion. In this frame the angular velocity is 0 rads/day. However…and this a really big deal…that frame is non-inertial. It is non-inertial because it is itself accelerating or rotating. You cannot make assessments about a body’s rotation using a non-inertial frame. You must use an inertial frame.
Norman, both of your “sources” make the same mistake. The get “rotating about an axis” correct, but they get “orbiting” wrong.
Orbiting does not also mean rotating on an axis. It is possible to orbit, without rotating on an axis. If NASA could have changed the definition of “orbiting” to include the motion of “rotating on an axis”, they would have been finished. They could have said that Moon was then both orbiting and rotating, because their new definition would result in orbiting (CCW) and rotating (CW) and rotating (CCW) = Moon is not rotating, which is what we see.
But, they knew people would not fall for the “orbiting also means rotating” ruse, so they were forced to go with the “tidal locking” cover.
It’s a fascinating history.
bdgwx, as I suspected, it didn’t take long for you to give up learning and revert to your indoctrination.
And, that just makes you wrong again. “Rotating about an axis” does not require an “inertial frame”. Rotating about an axis is a clearly understood kinematic motion. You’re trying anything to confuse the simple chalk circle.
ClintR said: Orbiting does not also mean rotating on an axis.
Your right! Orbiting does not also mean rotating. Those are two different concepts. Orbiting is the motion about a frame fixed the shared barycenter. Rotating is the motion about a frame fixed to the center of mass of the body in question.
ClintR said: It is possible to orbit, without rotating on an axis.
Your right again! It is possible for a body to orbit a shared barycenter without rotating on its own axis. The Hubble Space Station does this when they take long exposures of distant targets.
ClintR said: They could have said that Moon was then both orbiting and rotating
They do in fact say that the Moon is both orbiting and rotating.
https://tinyurl.com/y4qqeoo3
The Moons sidereal rotation period is 27.3 days.
The Moons synodic rotation period is 29.5 days.
The Moons earthly revolution period is 27.3 days.
The Moons solar revolution period is 365.25 days.
ClintR said: But, they knew people would not fall for the orbiting also means rotating ruse, so they were forced to go with the tidal locking cover.
Tidal locking is a real phenomenon just like the ocean tides are real and observable. There are physical reason why this happens. And it is not unique to the Earth-Moon system either. There are moons of Jupiter and Saturn that are tidally locked. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked. And yet they all have rotation wrt to an inertial reference frame.
ClintR said: And, that just makes you wrong again. Rotating about an axis does not require an inertial frame.
Yes it literally does. You can only make statements about a body’s rotation within an inertial reference frame.
Let me give you a simpler linear (as opposed to rotational) example to help illustrate the point about inertial reference frames. You are the driver of a car. You accelerate the car from 0 to 100 km/hr in 2s. Do you feel the acceleration force? Yes, of course you do. Specifically it is 13.9 m/s^2. It is real. You felt it. Everybody that repeats experiment feels it too.
But, when you come back to us you tell us you never accelerated and you even show us the calculation in which you got 0 m/s^2. The problem is that you arbitrarily decided to fix your reference frame such that X=0, Y=0, and Z=0 are all located within the car. Your computed acceleration in that frame is indeed 0 m/s^2. You then reinforce with as much fervor as your claim about the Moon not rotating that you never accelerated. Of course, I and everyone else throws up the red flag immediately and points out that you just used a non-inertial reference frame because it was accelerating with the car. The jig is up. You cannot rightfully claim that you never accelerated because you used a non-inertial reference frame. See the problem?
ClintR wrote:
In other words, you would place the x-axis on the Moon’s velocity vector. Since that vector must rotate once an orbit, that would also prove that the Moon rotates once an orbit with the “axis of rotation” being the z-axis thru the Moon’s center of mass.
bdgwx, you made up that straw man just for me? Wow! Thanks. It’s a really nice straw man.
E. Swanson, the vector is not rotating about its axis. It is orbiting.
You guys should all get together and come up with the definitions for “orbiting” and “rotating about its axis”. I bet that would really be funny.
ClintR
Sorry you are not as bright as you think you are and your posts are almost senseless.
I have wasted enough time on this topic with contrarians like you and the others. No logic or reason can be accepted by you.
No one is confusing orbiting with rotation on the axis. For some reason you cannot understand what rotation on axis means nor is it possible to explain it to you.
You are just another of the many contrarians who disagree just to disagree. Truth is not something you seek.
The video I linked to clearly explained both orbit and rotation.
ClintR
Here is another video which has an animation that shows both ORBITING and ROTATING. Maybe you don’t call what the graphic moon is doing as a rotation. That only means you don’t understand the term rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-_Uzzqgkk
I will see if this one works for you. If not I will end discussion with you. Not worth the time to argue with a Contrarian.
Norman, in a previous discussion you agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. So, that’s that for you I’m afraid.
Norman, are you one of those types that just attacks, insults, and berates, trying to make up for your inadequacies?
You want to be such an expert on this issue. Let’s see if that holds.
From your own “source”:
“Imagine it this way – your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving. If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating. If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating.”
Can you find the problem?
ClintR
It sounds correct to me. I do not see a problem.
Basically what the Moon is doing. It is slowly rotating as it moves in orbit to keep the same side facing the Earth. If it does not rotate then you see all sides.
Another one for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91XTV_p9pc&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX&index=2
They have a yellow line to show you rotation and also show the Moon orbiting (revolving) around the Earth.
Not sure how much more evidence you need.
I didn’t expect you to find the problem, Norman. You have not impressed me as someone that can think logically. So far you’re more like an irrational zealot.
Here’s a big hint: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
Can you see the problem now?
ClintR
The problem is not with me. I am not sure you know how to use the words “revolve” and “rotation” and I do not think you are able to understand that things can both rotate and revolve at the same time.
Here is accepted definitions of the terms “revolve” and “rotate”
https://byjus.com/physics/rotation-and-revolution/
YOU: “Heres a big hint: If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.
That is totally correct based upon accepted definitions of revolve.
If you are making a point get some support. At this time you are just wrong and look ignorant like you don’t know what you are talking about.
ClintR said: bdgwx, you made up that straw man just for me? Wow! Thanks. Its a really nice straw man.
ClintR said: Rotating about an axis does not require an inertial frame
No strawman from me. I’m trying to illustrate the absurdity of trying to use a non-inertial reference frame to make statements about motion. I’m not the one who built up that argument. That was you.
And please don’t take this personally. That’s not my point at all. I’m only trying to describe how rotational motion works in as formal a manner as possible. These definitions, concepts, and geometrical/mathematical techniques are not my own. It is the culmination of the work over hundreds of years by thousands of scientists who are far smarter than I.
Norman said: It sounds correct to me. I do not see a problem.
It looks correct to me too.
ClintR wrote:
Nothing said about the vector rotating about it’s “axis”.
The velocity vector changes direction as the satellite moves thru it’s orbit. It “points” in one direction at perigee and the opposite direction at apogee and so on around the orbit. A set of coordinates based on the velocity vector will rotate once an orbit. When you guys define the Moon’s rotation in those coordinates, the result is not the correct value for rotation. You all are stuck with an illusion/delusion regarding the meaning of “rotation”, which must be measured in non-rotating coordinates, i.e., an inertial reference frame. “Orbiting” refers to the motion of the center of mass of the satellite and has no influence on the rotation of the Moon.
You can’t see the problem, Norman. It is right in front of your face. But, you can’t see it.
I’m not surprised.
Your own link describes the two motions. From the description then, Moon is orbiting (revolving), not rotating about its axis.
If you believe otherwise, you get to argue with your own link!
Oh, and your link is from “NASA”, your holiest of holies!
bdgwx, please don’t take this personally:
You have no knowledge of orbital motion, or the kinematics of axial rotation. You can’t provide one legitimate definition that you can live with. You’re as big a fake as the others that try to twist reality.
But, as Scott R (no relation) said: You guys are funny.
E. Swanson, you seem to be sputtering somewhat, but if you’re now understanding Moon is orbiting, but not rotating about its axis, then you’ve got it right.
ClintR
You have the personality of past Contrarians. You keep making claims but you never answer anything.
What is your evidence that that the point in the Forbes article was wrong when it stated you revolve around your friend when you walk around them. Acting like you have some hidden mystical knowledge does not impress me the least. It makes you sound like you can’t supply an answer so you pretend to have something.
You have nothing. You are the same as the rest of the contrarians. Not very intelligent but stubborn. Pretending to know what you are talking about when you don’t.
Another phony Contrarian probably one of the old contrarians under a new name. All the same from you. Nothing of value, just endless junk.
Norman, your comment appears to be “endless junk”. You appear much more interested in attacking, insulting, and berating than the truth. You’re likely one of those sissies that would be unwilling to meet me face to face so I could properly respond to your insults.
Did you have a meaningful point, or question?
Here we go again, for those confused
“The Moon is in synchronous rotation as it orbits Earth; it rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. This results in it always keeping nearly the same face turned towards Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
bobdroege, wikipedia is full of nonsense like that.
You have to be careful.
Perhaps this reference is more to your liking Clint.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/
#146: Heliocentrists believe the Moon is a ball, even though
its appearance is clearly that of a flat luminous disc.
#147: The ball-Earth model claims the Moon orbits around
the Earth once every 28 days, yet it is plain for anyone to see
that the Moon orbits around the Earth every single day!
You’ve moved the wrong way. Try to move the other way, taking you to reality.
Clint, your arguments are the same as those flat earthers.
I am the one grounded in reality.
Reality is the moon spins because it is in synchronous rotation with the earth.
E. Swanson says:
”Orbiting’ refers to the motion of the center of mass of the satellite and has no influence on the rotation of the Moon.
==================================
Wow a complete denial of cause and effect!!!
I suppose with a world view like that you can imagine just about anything.
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
When walking in a circle around your friend, you would be keeping the same side of your body facing your friend the whole way around the orbit. Motion like the moon. If you then walked in a circle around your friend whilst also rotating on your own axis, your friends would see all sides of you. So that definition of “revolving” supports the “Non-Spinners”.
Looks like Bill, Clint and Dr Empty belong to the flat earth club.
B Hunter wrote:
Denial of what cause/effect?
As I understand it, the orbital motion of the Moon’s center of mass would be the same whatever it’s rate of rotation. It’s hypothesized that the tidal locking of the Moon is the result of tidal forcing acting over billions of years. The Moon’s orbit has been shown to be slowly moving farther from the Earth, also influenced by said tidal forcing from the Earth’s oceans, but I think that effect would be the same with or without a the Moon’s rotation.
Clint,
“I would align the x-axis tangent to Moon’s orbit, with positive x in direction of Moon travel. (That makes y-axis facing Earth.) As Moon orbits, there would be no rotation about the z-axis, as we (many of us) already knew.”
That’s not the correct reference frame.
You need to use an inertial reference frame, in other words one that has no forces or accelerations acting on the reference frame.
I think you’re right ES. If you put a hypothetical non-rotating moon near Earth with the right amount of initial momentum it will orbit the Earth without any initial sidereal rotation. That orbital motion is independent of its rotation.
But don’t hear what we aren’t saying bill. The tidal force the Earth exerts on the Moon moves the center of gravity away from the center of mass. This puts a torque on the Moon. Some of Earth’s sidereal angular momentum is being transferred into the Moon’s sidereal angular momentum. The Moon begins to rotate on its own axis over a period of time until it eventually gets tidal locked.
This is the important point bill…satellites of a planet will orbit the planet with or without rotating on their own axis. The Hubble Space Telescope is good example of this. To take a long exposure image it cannot be rotating on its own axis yet it still orbits. And since it is very small its center of gravity is nearly colocated with its center of mass so Earth’s tidal force is very small and produces only an imperceptible torque on it that is negligible. There is no risk of the HST getting tidal locked with the Earth given the small window of time it will be in operation and the gyroscopes on board to counteract the miniscule tidal force that does exist.
bobdroege said: You need to use an inertial reference frame, in other words one that has no forces or accelerations acting on the reference frame.
Exactly.
Ya know…global circulation models almost ubiquitously use a reference frame fixed to the Earth. The math happens to be easier this way. But because they use a non-inertial reference frame they have to bias correct for the fictitious forces like the Coriolis “force” so as to cancel out the acceleration/rotation that is being applied to the frame itself. In this reference frame the Earth has no angular velocity. But nobody claims the Earth isn’t rotating!
The “Non-Spinners”:
JD Huff.man
DREMT
Gordon Robertson
Mike Flynn
gbaikie
bill hunter
Scott R
ClintR
Ftop_t
AndyG55
Martin
Apologies if I’ve missed anybody. We’re into double figures now.
bdgwx says: ‘Tidal locking is a real phenomenon just like the ocean tides are real and observable. There are physical reason why this happens. And it is not unique to the Earth-Moon system either. There are moons of Jupiter and Saturn that are tidally locked. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked. And yet they all have rotation wrt to an inertial reference frame.’
=======================================
Probably the primary reason science loses respect with the public is how they attempt to elevate concepts to an actual physical presence.
An axis is an imaginary line that a scientist scoots around the universe however as need be on the most gyrating of paths and proclaims to the perceivers of the real world that physical objects are rotating about this line and then argue that the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth (they say no it doesn’t rotate it orbits).
If you have a long finger maybe you can stick it down your throat far enough to replicate the public’s reaction to that.
What I see as the real usefulness of an axis is to describe the motion that isn’t otherwise accounted for. The world is full of gravitational related forces some in the present and on going and some in the past. Carefully analyzing spin around an imaginary line will allow you to account for spin that is attributable to other objects in the universe down to the level of the precision of our observations. If observable spin isn’t accounted for then we have a mystery about how that spin arose.
But folks we are talking about an analytical tool not reality. Nothing just spins around its axis there is a reason for it. And that reason to the general public is intuitively understood.
Frames of reference apply to true vectors and only have an analytical role in psuedovectors such as angular velocity. So for intuitiveness sake you used a true vector to demonstrate a point that simply doesn’t apply to angular motion but is used solely for analytical purposes.
The general public could give a hoot about your analytical BS, that’s not their job. the main consideration of translating from an expert to a professional. . . .and its not easy. . . .is clearly understanding what is real and meaningful for your client/patient and what is not.
to me thats clear. I learned some stuff about the moon in this discussion so its been useful to me in confirming that all observed motions of the moon are well accounted for; each observable blip, nod, wink of the moon is due to orbital forces.
OTOH, looking at earth we don’t have a full accounting for its spin. So calling that spinning on ones axis actually has a frame of reference in general intuitive thinking. But talking about a chalked circle on the outer portion of a merry go round as rotating on its on axis has no intuitiveness because quite simply its only artificially induced by an analytical tool. (think computers also)
the chalk is rotating in time with the merry go round and its not spinning on the surface of the merry go round as is implied by the book learners around here.
Fact is book learning can have a couple different sides to it. On one hand it’s an important learning tool for specialized work. On the other hand it has a huge inculcating effect that if not understood by the expert and properly catalogued simply results in public disparagement as being out of touch.
Debates like this can be useful if it advances that understanding. If it doesn’t then its not useful. the only thing I find really interesting is the cannonball. Thats because I don’t know the answer for an object with zero momentum.
Momentum seems to be the most misunderstood characteristic of all, we see the climate warmers completely ignoring momentum of natural variation at the same time they push it to the maximum alarmist level for their pet theory. Is this total inculcation? Or devious intent?
On the cannonball rotation with the cannonball being fired from a level position and exactly the right muzzle velocity for a circular orbit (ignoring other objects in the universe) has zero angular momentum.
Gravity is a constant so objects of all densities and weight accelerate at an identical rate. With zero other forces acting on the cannonball after being fired and zero angular momentum the question is raised does a tiny force of gravity create an orbital rotation with the bottom of the cannonball always facing the ground. And a follow up on that is does that turning of the cannonball from an external perspective create any momentum itself.
Obviously its an arguable point lacking any experiment. To answer it you would need a frictionless release from orbit which doesn’t seem likely to ever occur as it probably requires a collision which obviously isn’t frictionless.
With Einstein’s theory of gravity being a curvature of space time maybe even their isn’t any rotation at all. If not the moon would clearly not be spinning on its axis and perhaps the earth still would be. Its interesting that Einstein’s discovery came from essential intuition as discussed above. Avoiding inculcation of ones own learning as I learned after moving from the academic world to the real world of having clients and understanding what was meaningful them separated me quite a difference from the same folks that followed institutional paths. It was an obvious difference that people in the trade labeled as elevating form over substance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Well, for the cannonball to rotate about the Earth whilst remaining oriented towards the same fixed star it would require the cannonball to rotate on its own axis once for every time it completes a rotation about the Earth, and in the opposite direction. So, if it was rotating about the Earth CCW, for example, it would need to rotate on its own axis CW once per orbit to remain oriented towards the same fixed star. Where would the torque come from for this axial rotation to occur!?
Whereas a cannonball moving like the moon would just be rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis.
bill, I didn’t seem much in your post relevant to tidal locking. It was a long post so maybe I missed it. Anyway…are you trying to argue that tidal locking is an imaginary concept?
bobdroege says:
May 22, 2020 at 8:36 AM
Looks like Bill, Clint and Dr Empty belong to the flat earth club.
==================================
Quite the opposite. Its you guys trying to impose linear and flat science onto curved science. bdgwx has been the most obvious sycophant for that.
Clint,
You are the one pinning an inertial reference frame on an accelerating object.
That’s a Bozo no-no.
Maybe we should try discussing whether the Moon is accelerating or no.
I’ll start:
The moon can’t be accelerating because it basically stays in the same spot.
Hows that?
B Hunter, Ever heard of the coordinate system attached to the Earth which provides latitude and longitude location? Sure, that’s an artificial mathematical construct, but it is extremely useful for providing one’s location on the Earth with relatively simple measuring tools, including a very accurate clock and a sextant. The axis of that coordinate system runs thru the poles, but the North Pole is a fictional spot on top of the sea-ice in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Guess what, all satellite systems use that coordinate system to chart the satellite’s position relative to the ground below as it orbits. In recent decades, the advent of GPS systems using satellites can provide real time position to within a few inches to anyone with a receiver, all based on that coordinate system.
From your long rant, I must conclude that you know little about physics, specifically dynamics, all of which is based on the proper choice of coordinate system and inertial reference frames are crucial for the design and operation of all man-made satellite systems, not to forget, ballistic missiles. For example, what the hell is a “true vector”? I don’t recall hearing such a term used when I briefly worked designing satellites.
BTW, I have yet to see any reference around here to any professional astronomer who claims that the Moon doesn’t rotate, DRsEMT list aside.
Aleksandar Tomic
http://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
Not surprising. True vectors like linear velocity cannot be translated like psuedovectors can. In other words you can work from a central axis and the results work well with reality even though the model you are using may not be reality.
In this way ‘book learning’ can lead to extrapolations that really aren’t supported by science.
In short its characteristic saves you from this silly argument when working in satellite design. But the only serious part of this argument only has implications regarding better and future understanding of our universe, particularly in expanding upon Einstein’s great intuitions.
IMO, this exposes itself best in the technology of gearing. Though thats far from a perfect model it does expose the connection between the earth and the moon. Most of the arguments contrary to that use the orbital forcing of the sun on the entire earth and moon system to create other apparent motions.
Like ocean tides on earth they vary a great deal due to the relative positions of the moon and the sun. The moon is the dominant influence on the earth’s ocean tides but the sun is a close second.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pseudovector.html
I’m not understanding the psuedovector discussion. No one is suggesting we reflect any of the bodies being discussed. And even if we did the angular velocity of those bodies about their own axis on an inertial frame is unchanged. If it rotates in real life it will rotate in the hypothetical reflected world too.
bdgwx says:
May 22, 2020 at 7:51 PM
Im not understanding the psuedovector discussion. No one is suggesting we reflect any of the bodies being discussed. And even if we did the angular velocity of those bodies about their own axis on an inertial frame is unchanged. If it rotates in real life it will rotate in the hypothetical reflected world too.
======================================
I can buy that as long as you realize what is real and what is hypothetical.
B Hunter, I too don’t see the mathematician’s arcane distinction about “psudovectors” for a discussion about the Moon’s rotation. The situation boils down to a simple transformation of coordinates from a rotating one with one axis fixed on the Moon-Earth vector and a non-rotating, inertial coordinate system. That transform isn’t a mirror transformation, AIUI. We are discussing solar system wide motions, not cosmic space-time questions of the beginning of the Universe some 13 billion years BP. Even selecting a coordinate system fixed to the Moon’s orbit shows the Moon rotates once each orbit.
Don’t forget the same logic applies to satellites in geostationary and other orbits orbits when the satellite is kept facing the Earth with a control system. The NOAA weather satellites fit that description.
E. Swanson says:
May 23, 2020 at 7:44 AM
B Hunter, I too dont see the mathematicians arcane distinction about psudovectors for a discussion about the Moons rotation. The situation boils down to a simple transformation of coordinates from a rotating one with one axis fixed on the Moon-Earth vector and a non-rotating, inertial coordinate system. That transform isnt a mirror transformation, AIUI.
=================================
It works and just like a mirror Swanson. Review this on ficticious forces and it might begin to sink in why angular velocity and angular momentum, among others, are psuedovectors.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
Finally ask yourself after this review what force is going to cause the toy globe on the rim of the merry-go-round that is going to cause it to start spinning while its just being carried around with some linear forces on the deck of the merry-go-round. Where does the torque come from?
bdgwx suggested the torque comes from resistance to merry-go-round starting up. I wasn’t aware of any such torque type resistance.
bill, for the Moon the torque comes from the elongated tidal bulge stretched towards the Moon. If the Moon has no angular velocity the bulge is forced is move around the Moon’s face. The bulge drags the surface mass not unlike ocean tides which induces a spin via friction. If you were to drop the Moon into Earth orbit without any initial angular momentum the tidal drag will induce it. The Moon will eventually tidal lock with the Earth.
The same thing is happening on Earth too. There is a tidal bulge that is being dragged by the Moon. The friction of this tidal drag is slowing Earth’s rotation. The Earth will itself eventually tidal lock with the Moon.
And since tidal lock is a stable equilibrium once a body becomes tidal locked with another there’s no going back.
B Hunter, As noted in your link, the Earth is not an inertial reference frame and, as a result, some problems using that coordinate system must include fictitious forces. Using an inertial reference frame gives a much different set of equations, for example, firing a cannon or launching a satellite. A satellite follows an elliptical path about the Earth’s center of mass, but the ground track on the rotating Earth appears much different.
But, we’ve been discussing the rotation of the Moon. Let me note once again: To properly quantify the rotation of the Moon, one must use a coordinate system which is an inertial reference frame. I suggested that one such coordinate system would place the origin at the center of mass for the Moon, first axis parallel to the orbit’s major axis, the second perpendicular to the orbit pane and the third orthogonal to the other two. In that coordinate system, the Moon clearly is rotating.
The non-rotating crowd, DRsMET being the loudest pest, insist on selecting the Moon-Earth vector as one axis, which produces a rotating reference frame. That’s identical to using Earth fixed coordinates to represent cannon trajectories and satellite orbits.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, As noted in your link, the Earth is not an inertial reference frame and, as a result, some problems using that coordinate system must include fictitious forces. Using an inertial reference frame gives a much different set of equations, for example, firing a cannon or launching a satellite. A satellite follows an elliptical path about the Earths center of mass, but the ground track on the rotating Earth appears much different.
—————————–
I haven’t thought to this point that the non-inertial reference frame applies to orbit insertion forces.
My position would be off the top of my head the launch and correction of a satellite would be accomplished entirely in a an inertial reference frame and no references would be required to a non-inertial frame. I will explain why below.
========================
==========================
E. Swanson says:
But, weve been discussing the rotation of the Moon. Let me note once again: To properly quantify the rotation of the Moon, one must use a coordinate system which is an inertial reference frame.
============================
I am not sure we are all together on this. I acknowledged the role of an inertial reference frame for power for orbital insertion.
Once in orbit and you have a spinning satellite that spin is probably characterized as a sidereal rotation in reference to the object you want the satellite to point towards. . . .earth’s surface (mgr axis?), some distant star or whatever.
Its not clear to me where you have to invoke a non-inertial reference frame for anything to launch and correct a satellite as its simply buried transparently in the concepts used for determining delta rotation.
On the topic of a tidal locked satellite though and the arcane question as to whether it rotates on its own axis or not you have to invoke the non-inertial reference frame for how that rotation comes about and the fact that no inertia for a globe on an mgr needs to be overcome to get that globe to follow the mgr path the same would seem to be true for the moon.
Its an arcane question and thus doesn’t apply to many circumstances (except say engineering a mgr and getting the horses to rotate, which quite frankly is too arcane of a question to consider for an engineer thus you probably don’t want to waste several days trying to measure the force or inertia that keeps the horse pointed in one direction (ref outside the frame) on a non-moving mgr when it starts up.
Worse come up with the wrong answer and waste money to create a separate drive train to rotate the horse in the same direction as the mgr
to understand the moon is to understand that such forces are not needed. I wrestled with this for a while in this thread going from the very tiny little amount of torque to stop a moon from spinning independently, to turning a cannonball during orbit insertion which appears to create a lot more needed torque.
That was until I realized you had to look at it in a non-inertial reference frame and no torque is required on the cannonball.
All the torque necessary is part and parcel to curving the path of the orbiting body. think carefully about a ball bearing rolling over the surface of the mgr after being flicked with a finger with an absolutely torqueless linear force. Rolling straight along a curved path provides the rotation as it does for the Coriolis effect. Since I have spent some time on the Coriolis Effect once I put that together with the moon rotation it all made sense.
Think also of a bobsled run and roll a round ball down it. You don’t need torque on the ball all you need is curved path with a channel for the ball to roll in. If you need torque then you aren’t in a non-inertial reference frame. For a tidal locking process like a satellite correction process you need torque on the ball. But once tidal locked the torque goes to zero as the moons irregularity is pointed at the earth and not providing torque. the moons irregular path probably turns on and off a little torque in different directions as the moon rotates it elliptical path but that torque all adds up to zero.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
If the moon is pointed in any specific direction in reference to non-inertial reference frame its not spinning on its own axis. You may want it to spin on its axis or you may want to stop it spinning on its axis and all that requires an inertial frame of reference.
bdgwx, I agree with your last post but read my response to E. Swanson right above.
B Hunter, All your discussion about torque misses the point. The Moon’s rotation and it’s orbit are separate processes, as we find them. One doesn’t need to measure the torque on the Moon to determine whether or not it is rotating, as it is already tidally locked. Just measure it’s rotation against the stars, which is as close to an ultimate inertial reference as is needed. If the Moon rotates around a vector in inertial coordinates, that vector about which it is rotating is it’s true axis and the result is thus “rotation about it’s own axis”. That is to say, the fact of rotation defines the axis.
If you want to get deeper into the mud, the Moon may not be a perfectly symmetrical sphere and the axis of rotation may not remain in the same vector as wobbles may occur. I know nothing about that, though it’s well known that the Earth is an oblate spheroid with bulges here and there.
In other words, “the moon rotates on its own axis because we define it such that the moon rotated on its own axis”. Pure circular logic from Swanson.
Sounds familiar. Who said this:
“Our position is that the motion orbital motion without axial rotation is defined as motion as per the moon. Axial rotation is then defined as separate and independent of this motion.
The circular logic specialist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
Every particle in the chalk circle moves in a circle about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore the chalk circle is rotating about that axis, and not on its own axis.
See also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473992
DRsEMT, Unlike your chalk circle, the Moon is NOT attached to the Earth. As a result, any “axis of rotation” must BY DEFINITION pass thru the center of mass. Dynamics, not kinematics, moron…
Calm down, Swanson. The moon is “attached” to the barycenter by this little thing called “gravity”.
DRsEMT, From you WIKI link:
Gravity controls the orbital motion of the centers of gravity of the two bodies. They do not act as one rigid body and the thus their respective rotations are uncoupled.
It doesn’t need to be one rigid body. Nowhere does it say that. “The axis of rotation need not go through the body”. Couldn’t be clearer.
DRsEMT, Your WIKI quote above begins:
The “body” reference is to a rigid body, as in my quote, not two separate bodies, which is the situation regarding the Earth and the Moon.
You’re still a Moron.
Every particle in the moon (the rigid body) is indeed moving in concentric circles about the Earth-moon barycenter.
Yes, that’s DREMT’s agreed 2(b) “rotation”, to keep the circles concentric, the moon has to rotate once on its own axis per orbit of another axis through the Earth-moon barycenter.
Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross.
DREMT skips the lab course again where it is demontrated the lines cross at 0 rotations per orbit as in your text 2(a) “translation”.
#2
Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross.
Except Dr Empty,
You have defined zero axial rotations as the case where the moon keeps the same side always pointed towards earth.
Incorrect definitions leads to incorrect results.
DREMT,
The only reference frame in which you get 0 axial rotations per orbit is the oriented to the Moon’s velocity vector. This is often referred to as the flow following or Lagrangian frame. That’s a non-inertial reference frame.
#3
Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross (the paths drawn out by the particles making up the object as it moves).
DREMT said: Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross (the paths drawn out by the particles making up the object as it moves).
Let’s be precise…
Only with a zero angular velocity in the non-inertial Lagrangian frame do the paths not cross.
Only with a specific non-zero angular velocity in an inertial frame do the paths not cross.
I am being absolutely precise, and correct, when I say:
#4
Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross (the paths drawn out by the particles making up the object as it moves).
Zero axial rotations relative to what frame?
Relative to the reality of what is actually occurring.
#5
Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross (the paths drawn out by the particles making up the object as it moves).
Only at one axial rotation per orbit do the paths not cross (the paths drawn out by the particles making up the object as it moves).
Fixed that for you, no charge.
Incorrect.
Dr Empty,
It only appears to be incorrect to you because you continue to use a circular definition of rotation with respect to the moon.
You define not rotating as per what the moon is doing. You claim the moon is not rotating because you claim the moon is not rotating.
Well done.
For a flat earth idiot.
The definitions are as linked to in the comment above. The “only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross” comes directly from the Wikipedia link and the much-discussed Fig 2(b) from the dynamics text. Sorry for your loss.
In order to make their theory of “CO2 Temperature Control Knob” work the climate shysters have to falsify and eliminate all natural causes like The Sun activity changes and ocean currents and circulations, along with the historical variability shown in climate records.
They have the great advantage of getting paid for it and doing it as a full time job.
The UAH is the last unmolested unfalsified data set left.
The reason the alarmists are trolling this blog so hard is they are trying to destroy it.
Eben wrote:
If you think the UAH data set is “unmolested”, you have no clue what UAH does with their data before presenting it. For starters, study what they do to combine the time series from some 13 satellites, each of which requires correction for orbit decay and change in LECT (Local Equator Crossing Time). There are other “corrections” applied as well. Furthermore, the UAH V6 TLT product is based on models to determine the equation which combines the TMT, the TTP and the TLS series, which is not validated.
Dream on…
Interesting. I had no idea that TLT was derived from the other products.
bdgwx, Here’s a link to S & C’s 2017 paper:
https://tinyurl.com/yal6yx9h
See Equation (1), etc.
LT = a1MT + a2TP + a3LS,
where a1=1.538, a2=-0.548, and a3=0.01
swannie…”Heres a link to S & Cs 2017 paper:”
Your link doesn’t work and who the heck is S&C? Are they yet another load of NOAA butt-kissers?
Spencer and Christy
bdg…”I had no idea that TLT was derived from the other products”.
It’s not, it’s another one of Swannie’s delusions, like the one in which he claims the 2nd law is not valid and that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
Well…that paper by Spencer and Christy linked to above says otherwise. Page 123 topic ‘b’ pretty much spells it out.
swannie…”For starters, study what they do to combine the time series from some 13 satellites, each of which requires correction for orbit decay….”
Come on, Swannie, any reputable scientist does exactly the same when combining the data output of different telemetry devices. That has nothing to do with the kind of fudging offered by NOAA and NASA. UAH is not synthesizing data by using the data from two sats to replace the data of an existing sat.
That’s exactly what NOAA and NASA do. Bolivia is a good example. They have synthesized a temperature for Bolivia based on two data sets at lower elevations. They do that all over the planet, especially on the ocean.
NOAA set out to change the flat trend announced by the IPCC in 2013, from 1998 – 2012. Till 2012, NOAA data showed the same flat trend. Then they retroactively fudged the SST to show a trend. You won’t find that sort of chicanery in the UAH record.
swannie…”Furthermore, the UAH V6 TLT product is based on models to determine the equation which combines the TMT, the TTP and the TLS series, which is not validated”.
Are you referring to a model or an actual computer used to run an algorithm? I have never heard Roy talking about UAH using a model. Do you realize what one would cost?
A model is just a set of rules, procedures, equations, algorithms used to produce useful output from a set of input data. It does not have to be executed by a computed. In fact, simple models really don’t require a computer at all. Certainly more complex models require a computer to produce their output in a timely, but that’s not absolutely required. I think you may be conflating the model with global circulation model. All GCMs are models. But not all models are GCMs.
Did you know the seemingly simple and trivial task of measuring the temperature with a thermocouple requires a model? Yep. It requires a model to map voltage input values into meaningful temperature output values that are material dependent. A lot physics theory goes into measuring the temperature!
So you can imagine the model(s) UAH uses to measure the global mean temperature are vastly more complicated.
bdg…”A model is just a set of rules, procedures, equations, algorithms used to produce useful output from a set of input data”
You mean it’s everything but real. The Bohr model is useful since many molecules and chemistry processes are based on it. However, no one can receive data from the actual atomic structure to determine if the model is right (validated).
A climate model is similar but the UAH data is taken directly from sensors. A climate model does not use sensors it is based on differential equations via humans trying to guess how the atmosphere works. There is no guessing with the UAH data.
Gordo, You have no clue what S & C are doing.
A mathematical equation is a model. The UAH equation which combines the three time series is a model and the coefficients (a, b, and c) are the result of some calculations based on theoretical models of the O2 emission/absorp_tion process in the atmosphere from the surface to TOA, all of which also relies on a model of the pressure/temperature profile of the atmosphere.
As they note:
S & C reference this model study: Conrath, B. J., 1972: Vertical resolution of temperature profiles obtained from remote radiation measurements. J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 1262-1271.
swannie…”A mathematical equation is a model. The UAH equation which combines the three time series is a model and the coefficients (a, b, and c) are the result of some calculations based on theoretical models of the O2 emission/absorp_tion process in the atmosphere from the surface to TOA…”
A mathematical equation is not a model if it represents reality. Ohm’s Law, E = IR, is not a model it is a fact and has been proved conclusively to be a fact. The differential equations used in climate models are not a fact until they are proved. They also include outright lies.
“MSU weighting functions computed from radiative transfer theory for the chosen reference Earth incidence angles, and the resulting LT averaging kernels computed from a linear combination of the MT, TP, and LS weighting functions”
The satellites were launched by NOAA for weather. No one is going to launch an unvalidated model to help predict weather.
Weighting function is a poor choice of terminology. A graphic equalizer used to filter different frequencies of sound acts the same way. Weighting only means one AMSU channel, which is based on real data, receives more energy from certain frequency bands than from others.
When you set up the filter throughput from an equalizer, the adjacent frequency bands overlap. With a cheaper octave equalizer, one band could be centred at 220Hz, the next at 440 HZ and another at 880 Hz. the first will have the most gain at 220 HZ, the next at 440 Hz, and the other at 880 Hz. However, the 220 centred band will pick frequencies the 440 band picks up, and vice versa.
Weighting is a reference to how much signal each AMSU channel picks up and how many frequencies overlap to other channels. Weighting does not infer a model, it is a reference to real telemetry measuring real microwave radiation from oxygen molecules at various levels.
The radiative transfer theory to which you refer is well researched. They are not working in the dark, the transfers are very accurate. It’s a matter of sorting out the different receiving channels in the AMSU as to the level of signal they receive. There’s not much in the way of guessing there either. This stuff has all been worked out based on solid theory and practice.
The atmosphere also has a pressure-temperature gradient by altitude. It’s not guessing to arrive at an extrapolated temperature over several kilometres altitude. Weathermen have done for ages.
Gordo, No, the UAH LT product is based on data from only 3 channels, MT is MSU2/AMSU5, TP is MSU3/AMSU7 and LS is MSU4/AMSU9. S & C use the term “weighting” to describe the values of the coefficients (a1, a2 and a3) used in calculating their LT product. Those values are not the same as the weighting curves calculated from radiation transfer theory to describe the theoretical brightness temperature measurement for each channel of the MSU or AMS instruments. The individual channel weighting curves in their Figure 2 are not measurements, but model results, based on some assumptions.
Furthermore, in their Figure 4, they display one swath of measured brightness temperature data which is then fitted to a polynomial curve. The resulting curve is another form of model. The actual data is plotted for different incidence angles, because each scan position views different slices of the atmosphere and different ground foot prints. In their actual calculations, they apply this curve fitting to monthly gridded averaged data from their stacked grids, one layer for each scan position, thus the values used are not collected from measurements made the same day, given the offset of the ground position from nadir for each scan position. More fun and games which we are asked to accept as fact.
DREMT
This video and the person’s reasoning remind me of the way you approach a topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF3LTkpwbas
With a very limited understanding of any physics this person makes a case based upon ignorance. If he read any physics textbook all the questions would be answered and his many flaws would become apparent.
I think Gordon Robertson will love this video. A Contrarian view going against the established view. How could it be wrong?
Norman, in a previous discussion you agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. So, that’s that for you I’m afraid.
DREMT
I think I resolved that for you the last time.
A ball on a string is no longer a separate object. The ball and string are one unique object. The “ball-string” object rotate on its axis. The ball does not as it is not a unique separate object at this point. Kind of similar to an iron rod. If you spin it around, no individual part of the rod would be considered rotating on its axis. The entire rod rotates on its axis as the “ball-string” unit rotates on its axis.
Not sure what is hard for you to grasp on that one. If the ball is not connected to a string it must rotate on its axis to keep facing the center of it revolution around a central point. It has to rotate once on its axis per orbit to keep facing the center.
I went on long discussions with walking. I used a merry-go-round example. If you stand on the merry-go-round as it rotates you face the center and do not need to rotate to face it. If you walking around the merry-go-round you have to keep rotating as you walk to keep the same side facing the center.
See? You agree that the ball is not rotating on its own axis. In which case there is already enough similarity between our positions that I cannot see the point in arguing about the rest. All the others would disagree with you on that point.
You keep doing your merry-go-round type experiments backwards , you just keep simulating the moon rotation while orbiting.
What you need to demonstrate is orbit without rotation.
Place an object with an arrow on it on a very low friction needle like bearing (or hang on a string) on the edge merry-go-round, as you go around the merry-go-round or whatever spinning device you have the arrow on the object will point always in the same direction and it will show all its sides to the center of the merry-go-round,
That is a an orbit with no rotation
That would be a CW orbit with one CCW axial rotation per orbit…
…or a CCW orbit with one CW axial rotation per orbit.
norman…”A ball on a string is no longer a separate object. The ball and string are one unique object. The ball-string object rotate on its axis. The ball does not as it is not a unique separate object at this point”.
It is, the ball keeps the string taut because the ball wants to sail off in a tangential direction, which is perpendicular to the string. The string nudges it into an orbit just as gravity nudges the Moon into an orbit. The Moon would sail off tangentially if gravity was turned off.
And no, the Moon would not be rotating around its axis, it would keep the same face pointing in the direction it was facing when gravity was turned off.
norman…”With a very limited understanding of any physics this person makes a case based upon ignorance”.
That’s not saying much for the profs who marked my exam papers and passed me. I dare say you would be bad-mouthing engineering profs who disagree with your disturbed views on physics.
Gordon Robertson
No profs passed you in physics. You just live in a delusional fantasy world of lies and deception. Your heroes are demented contrarians who caused the deaths of thousands (Peter Duesberg). You make believe you studied some physics, the reality is you never did. You read some contrarian posts on physics and now you pretend to be this “expert”. You cannot understand Einstein physics and the experimental basis for accepting this view. Pretend on. I doubt most believe your fantasy. You can’t understand how the Inverse Square Law works. You cannot accept hundreds of Electron Microscope images of HIV. Why do you think you need to post? What is your purpose in your posts? None are intelligent, none are based on any valid science. Most come from some stupid contrarian blogs you read. How do your post help anything?
Sissy Norman appears to rant at everyone, not just me.
Shucks. ☺
ClintR
I’m posting here since end of 2015 / beginning of 2016, that’s not so very long time ago. Others might know Roy Spencer’s blog since beginning.
But your nickname I have never seen before.
What do YOU know about Norman and Robertson, ClintR?
NOTHING.
If there is one person ranting here at everyone, than it is Robertson, ClintR, and certainly not Norman.
Robertson is an absolute ignorant and arrogant person who doubts about everything, even Einstein’s work.
Should you doubt about everything as well, so you then are Robertson’s friend, of course…
J.-P. D.
If you don’t think Norman rants at people, Bindidon, it’s because you have never been on the receiving end.
Bindidon, you have not seen me comment here because I usually just check in for the monthly results. But, I happened to see the Moon discussion going on this time. I first saw this discussion about 2008, somewhere else. I’m pretty sure all the people were different, but the ones believing Moon rotates about its axis had the same problems as those here. They kept changing definitions.
DREMT had a very clear and simple example of the chalk circle. I added color to both sides. Then, changed it to an earth globe. Any of the examples work, if one wants to understand. So like it was 12 years ago, some do not want to understand.
Then Norman comes in with the link to a “NASA ISS Flight Director”, that gives an example of both “orbiting” and “rotating about an axis”. When I explained it to Norman, he reponded with insults, as he hid behind the screen.
I don’t know Robertson but I saw Norman attack him, figuratively trying to club him to death. No one deserves that kind of treatment. I suspect Norman has personal issues. Maybe that’s the end result of living on deceptions, distortions, and denials.
ClintR said: They kept changing definitions.
We’re complying with the definition and standard that all astronomers have agreed upon.
What definition are you using? What quantity do you compute to determine rotation? How do you make that computation? What reference do you use? Be specific so that we can try to replicate your work.
ClintR said: DREMT had a very clear and simple example of the chalk circle.
I didn’t think it was that clear. That’s probably on me though. Regardless every arrangement of the chalk circle I contemplated had non-zero angular velocity. Therefore no matter how you draw that chalk circle it was rotating on its own axis.
ClintR said: Then, changed it to an earth globe.
That had angular velocity in an inertial reference frame fixed to its own axis too. Therefore it too is rotating.
What about the Moon? Well it’s angular velocity in the sidereal frame is 0.23 rads/day. The sidereal frame fixed to the center of mass of the Moon and is inertial. Therefore it too is rotating.
And here is the NASA fact sheet for the Moon…again.
https://tinyurl.com/y4qqeoo3
You can clearly see that the “sidereal rotation period” is 655.728 hours or 27.3 days which is 0.23 rads/day.
“Therefore no matter how you draw that chalk circle it was rotating on its own axis.”
It is physically impossible for the chalk circle to rotate on its own axis. It’s just something that’s drawn drawn onto a rigid body. That doesn’t seem to bother you, though.
bdgwx, your ONE issue question is: What definition are you using?
Orbiting: Orbital motion is the result of gravity and inertia acting on a body. The orbital paths are usually elliptical, varying from one body to another due to varying forces.
Rotating about an axis: Circular movement around a center, usually the center of mass.
What definitions do you prefer?
The Moon definitely has circular movement about its center of mass. That’s clearly evident from the fact that astronauts observed the stars moving in the sky and it does have a daytime and nighttime as it alternates facing toward and away from the Sun. That sounds pretty consistent with your definition of rotation I think. It also goes around the Earth in a circular pattern. That sounds pretty consistent with your definition of orbit I think.
bdgwx, you’re behaving like an idiot.
If the lunar astronauts saw stars moving, it was due to the fact that Moon is orbiting. Same with daytime and nighttime.
You tried the same nonsense with the non-spinning earth glove, claiming it was rotating to an inertial frame so it was “rotating on its axis”.
You keep distorting the simple facts and definitions to support your incorrect beliefs. Your responses are predictable.
I’m a believer in the quote: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I have no interest in a non-productive typing contest, so when you quit acting like an idiot, let me know.
ClintR said: If the lunar astronauts saw stars moving, it was due to the fact that Moon is orbiting. Same with daytime and nighttime.
Ok, so let me see if I have this straight.
Observers on astronomical bodies experience day/night because the body orbits another and not because it rotates on its own axis?
Observers on astronomical bodies see movement of the stars because the body orbits another and not because it rotates on its own axis?
ClintR said: You tried the same nonsense with the non-spinning earth glove, claiming it was rotating to an inertial frame so it was “rotating on its axis”.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you post a link to my comment you are referring to? I’d like to know exactly what I said.
ClintR said: You keep distorting the simple facts and definitions to support your incorrect beliefs. Your responses are predictable.
I don’t think I’ve distorted what sidereal rotation means. Maybe you can provide your version and we’ll see if syncs up with what NASA says and see if it is consistent with this page. https://tinyurl.com/y4qqeoo3
ClintR said: I have no interest in a non-productive typing contest, so when you quit acting like an idiot, let me know.
If “acting like an idiot” means acknowledging that the Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27.3 days which is 0.23 rads/sec then I have no shame in being an “idiot” the you way you define it. That’s not going to change.
BTW…if I have offended you in any way I am genuinely sorry.
ClintR
You guys are probably right. I am getting too radical. Contrarians like you and the others have always been around. There are many who think the World is Flat and the Sun and Moon are only a few miles up. Logic and reason do not work on Contrarians nor does radical posts. Basically it is just something I will have to deal with if I wish to post on a science blog.
If antiscience and illogical thought with zero supporting evidence for any claim are the goal of the contrarian who am I to get upset by this behavior. I can just try to keep science alive with good links and counter the false claims you contrarians make. I can quit the ranting. I will still oppose the anti-scientific posts by contrarians. I just have to be more like a Spock mentality. Remove the emotion and just refute the contrarian claims.
bdgwx, if you believe you’ve been treated unfairly, I’m willing to re-test you. I don’t want to be unfair to anyone, even idiots. So answer this simple question. If you get it wrong, then you’re an idiot.
A toy earth sphere can rotate on its axis. The sphere is mounted to the floor of a merry-go-round, so that it can still rotate. Initially, the merry-go-round is not revolving and the sphere is not spinning.
Question: When the merry-go-round is revolving, is the earth sphere rotating about its axis or only appearing to do so to an observer standing on the ground?
A) Yes, it is actually rotating about its axis
B) No, it only appears to be rotating about its axis
Since this is an idiot test, I am allowed to give you the correct answer. The correct answer is “B”.
Now, to determine if you are an idiot or not, what is your answer? Take all the time you need.
Looks like someone is giving an Idiot test.
To be qualified to give an Idiot test one must be a qualified Idiot.
Is that you JD?
That sounds a little better, Norman.
If you can also quit labeling people just because they disagree with you, and quit building straw men, you might just appear more scientific and mature.
bobdroege, feel free to give your answer. Just be careful to get the right answer! Often idiots can get themselves so confused.
ClintR 2:00, I’m curious how you can explain B) that your earth sphere can appear to be rotating on its own axis but not be actually rotating on its own axis.
Clint,
Why would I give my answer to an Idiot conducting an Idiot test?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Therefore no matter how you draw that chalk circle it was rotating on its own axis.
It is physically impossible for the chalk circle to rotate on its own axis. Its just something thats drawn drawn onto a rigid body. That doesnt seem to bother you, though.
=============================================
Of course it doesn’t bother him, it’s an unverified notion arising from how he was inculcated that he can stab an imaginary in the middle of anything and tell you all you ever would need to know about it. His only disappointment is he finds it harder to sell than a book on how to make out with girls.
Yes, obviously B). If you were sat on the merry-go-round spinning the toy globe on its own axis whilst the merry-go-round rotates, then it would be rotating on its own axis. If you rotated it CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.
Apparently therefore no matter how you draw that chalk circle it was only appearing to be rotating on its own axis and not actually rotating on its own axis per Clint. How does Bill explain that?
Yep, if you actually rotated toy globe CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit and thus appear not to rotate even though you actually rotated it.
Something can both rotate and not rotate at the same time in DREMT’s physics. Thus all objects rotate and do not rotate at the same time per DREMT, Bill, and ClintR.
When the roundabout is rotating and you are not rotating the globe on its own axis, the globe is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
When the roundabout is rotating and you are rotating the globe on its own axis, the globe is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and on its own axis.
Now DREMT forced to admit the previous globe WAS rotating CW on its own axis. Except DREMT wrote “the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.” Thus not rotating on its own axis. Like DREMT claims about the moon.
As I wrote, totally confused DREMT confirms 4:54pm objects both rotate and not rotate at the same time in DREMT’s physics. In fact, all objects rotate and not rotate at the same time per DREMT, Bill, and ClintR. Since that is true per DREMT physics, DREMT has proved he knows the moon rotates on its own axis.
Want to change your story yet again DREMT? If so, you could (but won’t) add some relevant physics like inertial ref. frames, separate distinct axes, and orbiting a central body to your, Bill, and ClintR inventories of rigid body dynamics knowledge.
Poor Ball4 is all confused again.
There is the globe rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and the globe rotating on its own axis. Two separate and independent motions.
Seems like you are unable to distinguish between the two.
Way to go, DREMT, you have changed your story back to disagree with ClintR, Bill and agree with your text Fig. 2(b) where there is the rectangle rotating about the center O, and the rectangle rotating on its own axis. Two separate and independent motions as you write 5:26pm. Good job. Try to stick with that and not change your story again.
Here is a simple way to understand the difference between the two separate and independent motions:
When the roundabout is rotating and you are not rotating the globe on its own axis, the globe is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
When the roundabout is rotating and you are rotating the globe on its own axis, the globe is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and on its own axis.
In other words, when something physically does not happen, it does not happen.
When something physically happens, it does happen.
To relate it to Fig. 2(b), there you have the rectangle rotating about the center O, and not on its own axis. This is equivalent to the globe on the merry-go-round when you do not spin it. The globe is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, as it rotates, and not on its own axis…because you are not physically rotating it about its own axis with your hands. The rectangle is unable to rotate on its own axis (center of mass) due to the rod connecting it to point O.
In both cases, the particles making up the globe, and the rectangle, move in concentric circles about the center of the merry-go-round, and point O, respectively.
Only with zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross, in this manner.
Who raised this again, and what was the point? You can’t convert a denier through a rational scientific argument. Do we really want to see page after page of their blog “science” ?
The debate stops when people stop commenting about it. It can’t be helped that so many deniers, like Ball4 and bdgwx and bobdroege and Bindidon etc are so utterly obsessed with it.
So now, when the globe is rotating on its own axis DREMT writes “the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.”
Then when the globe is claimed NOT rotating on its own axis to relate Fig. 2(b) the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point O throughout the orbit.
As usual, in DREMT’s claimed physics, the globe (or rectangle or any object) is both rotating and not rotating on its own axis on the same merry-go-round. Proving DREMT knows the moon rotates on its own axis.
“So now, when the globe is rotating on its own axis DREMT writes “the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.””
Only when the merry-go-round rotates e.g. CCW, whilst you rotate the globe on its own axis CW, at the same rate, does the toy globe remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.
“…the same fixed point throughout the orbit.”
To clarify: “…the same distant, external point (like a star) throughout the orbit.”
DREMT is forced to change his story yet again. Will DREMT changes never stop and Midas get Midas’ desire?
But sure, when the merry-go-round rotates e.g. CCW or, whilst you rotate globe on its own axis CW, at the same rate, or you don’t rotate the toy globe at all, does the toy globe remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit like a star and point O…so all objects both rotate on their own axis and don’t rotate on their own axis on the same merry-go-round.
Proving DREMT knows the moon rotates on its own axis.
Point O is internal to the object, the fixed star is external, and distant. Hence there is no confusion, except where Ball4 desires to create it, deliberately. Ball4 exists to attempt to confuse the issue.
Yes O is internal to the object in 2(b) and the fixed star external. Once again, DREMT has proved in his own words that DREMT knows the moon rotates on its own axis.
A complete non-sequitur.
ClintR said: If the lunar astronauts saw stars moving, it was due to the fact that Moon is orbiting. Same with daytime and nighttime.
If possible I’d still like clarification of your statement here. If you wouldn’t mind can you answer the following questions?
Do you believe observers on astronomical bodies experience day/night because the body orbits another and not because it rotates on its own axis?
Do you believe observers on astronomical bodies see movement of the stars because the body orbits another and not because it rotates on its own axis?
Midas: “what was the point?”
The point was to prove DREMT, using his own comment wording, knows the moon rotates on its own axis because he points out all objects (rectangle, toy globe, chalk circle) both rotate on their own axis and do not rotate on their own axis on the same merry-go-round.
To many here, this is obvious and so are the physical reasons. DREMT was unwittingly accommodating in proving he knows the moon rotates on its own axis by revealing that circumstance in his own words written for all to read. And the internet never forgets, though DREMT will soon forget and try to rewrite history as sophist DREMT so often does.
Fun to watch the sophistry of DREMT changing his stories in a manner proving DREMT knows the moon rotates on its own axis.
ClintR says:
May 22, 2020 at 2:00 PM
bdgwx, if you believe youve been treated unfairly, Im willing to re-test you. I dont want to be unfair to anyone, even idiots. So answer this simple question. If you get it wrong, then youre an idiot.
A toy earth sphere can rotate on its axis. The sphere is mounted to the floor of a merry-go-round, so that it can still rotate. Initially, the merry-go-round is not revolving and the sphere is not spinning.
Question: When the merry-go-round is revolving, is the earth sphere rotating about its axis or only appearing to do so to an observer standing on the ground?
A) Yes, it is actually rotating about its axis
B) No, it only appears to be rotating about its axis
Since this is an idiot test, I am allowed to give you the correct answer. The correct answer is B.
Now, to determine if you are an idiot or not, what is your answer? Take all the time you need.
===================================
Nice example. As we know the particles rotating an axis travel longer paths the further they are from the axis. Its clear in your example of the toy earth globe sitting on its axis and not spinning that the length of the paths being traveled by particles on the toy globe when the merry-go-round is operating is independent of the location of the toy globe axis.
That distance the particles travel are only changed when the toy globe actually starts rotating on its axis.
So B is the obvious and correct answer. where did bdgwx go? I wanted to see his response.
bdgwx showed up to ignore all questions asked of him, ignore what anybody else had written, and to instead ask questions of ClintR that he ought to know the answer to already.
Then Ball4 lost the plot and started gibbering incoherently to anybody that would listen.
I think that is everything…
Bill: “That distance the particles travel are only changed when the toy globe actually starts rotating on its axis.”
Bill, apparently you are not in agreement with DREMT writing:
“If you were sat on the merry-go-round spinning the toy globe on its own axis whilst the merry-go-round rotates, then it would be rotating on its own axis.”
DREMT thus points out that the distance the particles travel is not changed when whilst on the merry-go-round you start the toy globe actually rotating on its axis once CCW for one CCW rotation of the merry-go-round. In this case, that distance the particles travel is NOT changed when you start the toy globe actually rotating on its axis.
Then as DREMT also points out, if you rotated it CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW, the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit, then that distance the particles travel is changed and you two agree.
Take this opportunity to add some relevant physics like inertial ref. frames, separate distinct axes, and orbiting a central body to your, DREMT, and ClintR inventories of rigid body dynamics knowledge.
B) is not so obvious an answer.
ClintR said: When the merry-go-round is revolving, is the earth sphere rotating about its axis or only appearing to do so to an observer standing on the ground?
I will assume the toy sphere is on a rotationally frictionless mount and is not subject to air resistance or any force that can torque the connecting rod for the sphere. It will start out with no angular momentum.
For the first part of the question…no. It will not rotate on its own axis. It will be forced to translate as the merry-go-round begins moving, but since there are no forces that act to change the sphere’s orientation a unique mark that starts on the north side of the sphere will continue to point towards the north because its rotational inertia keeps it in the orientation in which it began.
For the second part of the question…no. An observer on the ground would not perceive rotation except for a small libration effect. The further away the observer the less the libration will be.
Caveat…in reality the mount cannot be frictionless so the connecting rod will likely experience a torque.
I gave this a lot of thought. I think I’m right, but I’m prepared to be wrong about this. What do you guys think?
Now if you were to then put a pin in the connecting rod that locks the sphere to the merry-go-round after the mgr started moving what happens? It obviously begins rotating if it wasn’t already. But why? I believe this is because of the differential force that gets applied to the connecting rod as a result of the different in linear velocity between inner and outer points of the merry-go-round. Specifically the momentum transfer is different on the inner outer edge of the connecting rod vs the inner edge. P=mv and v is different at different radii so a torque gets put on the connecting rod.
Err…
“Specifically the momentum transfer is different on the inner outer edge of the connecting rod vs the inner edge.”
…should have been…
“Specifically the momentum transfer is different on the outer edge of the connecting rod vs the inner edge.”
BTW…assuming the merry-go-round was also on a frictionless mount and not subject to any other forces like air resistance I believe the mgr will slow down ever so slightly as it transfers some its angular momentum into the toy sphere once the pin is put into the connecting rod. Vice versa…if you start with the mgr stationary and spin up the toy sphere and then put the pin in the connecting rod the toy sphere’s angular momentum will get transferred into the mgr and cause the mgr to rotate ever so slightly. Afterall…the toy sphere’s angular momentum and kinetic energy has to go somewhere. It’s conservation of angular momentum and conversation of energy at work. And again…everything is frictionless so heat dissipation is not in play.
ball4…what do you think?
bdgwx says:
I will assume the toy sphere is on a rotationally frictionless mount and is not subject to air resistance or any force that can torque the connecting rod for the sphere. It will start out with no angular momentum.
For the first part of the questionno. It will not rotate on its own axis. It will be forced to translate as the merry-go-round begins moving, but since there are no forces that act to change the spheres orientation a unique mark that starts on the north side of the sphere will continue to point towards the north because its rotational inertia keeps it in the orientation in which it began.
=======================
what force is going to cause this still toy globe to start creating momentum around its axis. You say the MGR starts up its rotational inertia keeps it pointed north. What force is that?
When the merry-go-round starts up there is an acceleration but the acceleration whether translated as forward moving or as a centrifugal force is equal in a linear fashion across the entire toy globe (e.g. at the equator of the globe the forces are in the same direction for both hemispheres)
Is this some gravitational effect of being pointed at distant fixed stars?
Ball4 says:
Take this opportunity to add some relevant physics like inertial ref. frames, separate distinct axes, and orbiting a central body to your, DREMT, and ClintR inventories of rigid body dynamics knowledge.
B) is not so obvious an answer.
=========================================
It is obvious. The reference frame for the toy globe is the MGR a non-inertial frame of reference. No forces outside of the MGR are acting on the toy globe.
When the MRG starts the toy globe ‘perceives’ ficticious forcings of acceleration and centrifugal force and if the toy globe isn’t attached to the MGR by its axis it would be thrown off the MGR.
But there are zero torque forces being applied to the toy globe. Torque is being applied to the MGR not the toy globe.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
“Now if you were to then put a pin in the connecting rod that locks the sphere to the merry-go-round after the mgr started moving what happens? It obviously begins rotating if it wasn’t already.”
So locking the sphere and making it physically impossible for it to rotate on its own axis causes the sphere to…rotate on its own axis. Whilst you believe that without being locked, initially the sphere would rotate on its own axis once per orbit and in the opposite direction to the MGR such that a point on the globe remains oriented to the same fixed star throughout the orbit. Same question bill asked: what force causes this opposing axial rotation to begin?
…and, follow-up question…what are you smoking?
I have a globe at home. Holding the globe by the mount at arms length and turning around on the spot I can assure you that there is absolutely no tendency for a point on the outside of the globe to remain oriented towards the same fixed, distant, external point throughout the orbit (such as always facing north, for example). The same point on the side of the globe facing me is instead always facing directly toward me throughout the orbit as I spin round on the spot. Now I know the bearings of my globe are not frictionless, but I ought to have seen a little of the effect bdgwx thinks would happen with frictionless bearings…I saw absolutely none.
“Whilst you believe that without being locked, initially the sphere would rotate on its own axis once per orbit and in the opposite direction to the MGR such that a point on the globe remains oriented to the same fixed star throughout the orbit. Same question bill asked: what force causes this opposing axial rotation to begin?”
Once again, D tries to tell people what they believe and gets it all wrong.
In the inertial reference frame the sphere simply keeps its orientation FIXED. No forces needed whatsoever, and no contradictions.
No need to start rotating in opposite direction in reality.
That the contradiction only arises in your alternate reality should tell you something is wrong.
Will it?
#2
I have a globe at home. Holding the globe by the mount at arms length and turning around on the spot I can assure you that there is absolutely no tendency for a point on the outside of the globe to remain oriented towards the same fixed, distant, external point throughout the orbit (such as always facing north, for example). The same point on the side of the globe facing me is instead always facing directly toward me throughout the orbit as I spin round on the spot. Now I know the bearings of my globe are not frictionless, but I ought to have seen a little of the effect bdgwx thinks would happen with frictionless bearingsI saw absolutely none.
“Now I know the bearings of my globe are not frictionless”
Good, then youve figured it out.
Try it with a heavier object with better bearings.
Hold a bicycle with its front wheel off the ground and oriented with its axle vertical. Rotate the whole bike.
You will see the wheel’s orientation will try to stay fixed.
By the way, I also tried it with a fidget spinner, which has exceptional bearings. Same thing.
Bill 1:49am stumbles into: “a non-inertial frame of reference. No forces outside of the MGR are acting on the toy globe.
If its non-inertial, its an accelerated frame, Bill, thus forces on the toy globe by definition. Here’s DREMT again:
“If you rotated (toy globe) CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.”
So this answer does not work: B) No, it only appears to be rotating about its axis.
AS DREMT explains, toy globe is actually being rotated CW.
DREMT is forcing the globe to rotate while it only appears to NOT be rotating about its axis, you know, like the moon.
Thanks to DREMT: Bill and ClintR ought to have learned some relevant physics like inertial ref. frames, separate distinct axes, and orbiting a central body in field of rigid body dynamics.
NB: in Bill’s ref. the artist shows the merry-go-round poles mechanism rotating the horses once CCW on their own axis per their CCW orbit of the center axis. As DREMT states, if DREMT actually rotated the horses CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the horses would remain orientated towards the same fixed star point throughout the orbit and appear to NOT be rotating while they are actually being rotated on their own axis CW.
It’s all relative.
In ClintR’s original setup and question, to which the correct response is B), nobody is sitting on the merry-go-round spinning the globe.
bdgwx 9:59pm: “ball4…what do you think?”
Your “connecting rod for the sphere” mechanism is not clear enough to me, I only get a headache.
The answer to ClintR’s question you clip depends on if DREMT is on the merry-go-round and actually rotating the toy globe. If so, ClintR’s answer is the sphere can be both actually rotating about its axis and appearing to do so or NOT appearing to do so to an observer standing on the ground, depending on DREMT’s actions.
bill said: what force is going to cause this still toy globe to start creating momentum around its axis.
With a rotationally frictionless and non-deforming apparatus…none. That’s why the sphere does not acquire any angular velocity/momentum in an inertial frame. That’s why a mark on the sphere that is initially pointing north continues to point north even as it orbits the center of the mgr.
bill said: You say the MGR starts up its rotational inertia keeps it pointed north.
No. I didn’t say that. What I said was that the sphere’s rotational inertia keeps it pointed north. Remember, inertia is the tendency to do nothing unless acted upon by a force. If there is no torque applied to the connecting rod then the sphere will continue to point north even as it orbits the center of the mgr due to its inertia. The more massive the sphere the more inertia it has.
bill said: When the merry-go-round starts up there is an acceleration but the acceleration whether translated as forward moving or as a centrifugal force is equal in a linear fashion across the entire toy globe
If you have to invoke the centrifugal force then you are using a non-inertial reference frame.
Anyway…here is where things get interesting. Let’s say you have the mgr spinning at a constant rate and the sphere, having a frictionless connecting rod, is always pointing north and thus has no angular velocity/momentum. If you then insert the locking pin into the connecting rod the sphere will immediate acquire rotational angular velocity in equal magnitude to its orbital angular velocity. Here is how this works. Imagine the locking pin oriented along a radial line. There other orientations you can consider, but this orientation is the simplest to explain so I recommend starting with it first. The pin has 2 points of contact with the mgr. There is the outer contact point that is closest to the edge of the mgr and there is the inner contact point that is closest to the center of mgr. The moment the pin is inserted the mgr impacts it at two points. This is when the mgr’s momentum is transferred to the sphere. Understanding that P=m*v and that v is larger at the outer contact point than the inner contact point the connecting rod experiences a torque proportional to (vo – vi) and whose vector points up (using the right hand rule) if the mgr is spinning counterclockwise. The sphere stays locked into its 1:1 rotation-orbit resonance because if the rotation rate is any faster or slower the mgr impacts the locking pin with a net torque that reverses the perturbation.
bill said: Is this some gravitational effect of being pointed at distant fixed stars?
With the Moon or any other astronomical body instead of physical contact interactions you have gravitational interactions at a distance. The concepts here are center of gravity and center of mass. Those are two different things. The Moon’s center of gravity is offset from its center of mass due to the tidal force that elongates the Moon into an egg shape that points toward the Earth. The center of gravity is thus pulled closer to the Earth than the center of mass. Gravitational forces interact with the center of gravity; not the center of mass. If that egg shape tilts backward or forward the Earth’s gravity tries to pull it back toward the Earth. So if you dropped the Moon into an Earth orbit without any angular velocity/momentum about its own axis a torque will be induced in the Moon via the tidal force that causes the Moon to begin rotating. It will eventually tidal lock such that its rotational angular velocity matches its orbital angular velocity.
“With a rotationally frictionless and non-deforming apparatus…none. That’s why the sphere does not acquire any angular velocity/momentum in an inertial frame. That’s why a mark on the sphere that is initially pointing north continues to point north even as it orbits the center of the mgr.”
Not according to experiment, as I described.
DREMT 9:48am means, of course, his globe experiment 6:55am where DREMT’s hand forces the globe CCW N,W,S,E once on globe’s own axis given the friction as DREMT rotates once CCW on DREMT’s own axis per the agreed Fig. 2(b).
Thanks for the demonstration of Fig. 2(b) “rotation” accuracy DREMT as friction is your friend.
The bearings of the globe and fidget spinner were not frictionless, but there ought to have been some tendency towards such movement as bdgwx described. There was none.
Ball4 says:
Bill 1:49am stumbles into: a non-inertial frame of reference. No forces outside of the MGR are acting on the toy globe.
If its non-inertial, its an accelerated frame, Bill, thus forces on the toy globe by definition. Heres DREMT again:
If you rotated (toy globe) CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.
=========================
Your getting it Ball4
Its an accelerating frame that exerts a linear force on the toy globe. Thus there is no torque created by the MGR on the globe. All you have in forces acting on the axis of the toy globe is a centripetal force and a linearly accelerating mgr disk. but these forces act uniformly on the entire globe creating no torque. Several of you actually started out with that argument in this comment section. I suspect its just pure orneriness thats preventing some from accepting it.
The only torque that might exist is the same imperfections or lack of rigidity of the toy globe which would merely turn it a partial turn.
the idea that the toy globe is spinning on its access is a combination of a illusion and the fact that the psuedovector formulas work for the orbital rotation of the toy globe when translated from the psuedovectors of the MGR.
But within the non-inertial frame of the MGR the toy globe retains its non-moving position relative to the MGR frame unless acted upon by some torque.
In this example such a spin would require some torque from outside the MGR as the MGR is only supplying linear acceleration and centripetal forces.
bdgwx suggested there would be some need for a force to keep it from spinning, but this is simply an illusion of the globe spinning on its axis when in the non-inertial frame of the MGR there is nothing to cause it to spin.
bdgwx says:
bill said: what force is going to cause this still toy globe to start creating momentum around its axis.
With a rotationally frictionless and non-deforming apparatusnone. Thats why the sphere does not acquire any angular velocity/momentum in an inertial frame. Thats why a mark on the sphere that is initially pointing north continues to point north even as it orbits the center of the mgr.
========================
Your problem is that the globe is in a non-inertial frame and the mark on the sphere that is pointing to the white horse on the MGR stays pointed at the white horse on the MGR unless some torque is applied to sphere. My question was where does that torque come from.
================
=================
bdgwx says:
bill said: You say the MGR starts up its rotational inertia keeps it pointed north.
===================
No. I didnt say that. What I said was that the spheres rotational inertia keeps it pointed north. I agree there is a rotational inertia to overcome to get the globe to spin on the MGR. But no rotational inertia is required for the globe to simply travel around with the MGR without changing its orientation with the MGR.
================
=================
bdgwx says:
Remember, inertia is the tendency to do nothing unless acted upon by a force.
===============================
Sure the globe is going to move in a linear fashion based upon a linear acceleration of the outer particles of the MGR disk and a centripetal force by virtue of the attachment of the axis to the MGR disk. But neither of those forces apply any torque on the globe.
================
=================
bdgwx says:
If there is no torque applied to the connecting rod then the sphere will continue to point north even as it orbits the center of the mgr due to its inertia. The more massive the sphere the more inertia it has.
=======================
You are in the wrong frame of reference. The reference frame is the MGR in that frame there is no change of position or orientation of the globe, thus no inertia to overcome.
================
=================
bdgwx says:
bill said: When the merry-go-round starts up there is an acceleration but the acceleration whether translated as forward moving or as a centrifugal force is equal in a linear fashion across the entire toy globe
If you have to invoke the centrifugal force then you are using a non-inertial reference frame.
=======================
Thats correct! https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
================
=================
I will skip the rest until you get in the correct frame of reference and realize there is no tendency to point north when bolted to the MGR and the MGR starts accelerating. There will be a tendency for a mark on the globe to point to some object on the MGR and stay pointed to that when the MGR accelerates. Thats the basics expressed in the link I included above.
I tried it with my Globe. It works fine. You have to rotate quickly.
Works even better with a fidget spinner, better still with a bicycle wheel.
Oh well, we cant trust D to do experiments right.
Sorry I got my separators mixed up in the reply above. It should look like:
bdgwx says:
bill said: You say the MGR starts up its rotational inertia keeps it pointed north.
No. I didnt say that. What I said was that the spheres rotational inertia keeps it pointed north.
===================
I agree there is a rotational inertia to overcome to get the globe to spin on the MGR. But no rotational inertia is required for the globe to simply travel around with the MGR without changing its orientation with the MGR.
“tendency towards such movement as bdgwx described. There was none.”
In all 3 there was just such a tendency. Then after a short time, friction takes over.
Now its clear that DREMT is lying or living in an alternate reality.
“I will skip the rest until you get in the correct frame of reference and realize there is no tendency to point north when bolted to the MGR and the MGR starts accelerating. There will be a tendency for a mark on the globe to point to some object on the MGR and stay pointed to that when the MGR accelerates. Thats the basics expressed in the link I included above.“
…and it agrees with experiment.
Bill 12:59pm: “It’s an accelerating frame that exerts a linear force on the toy globe. Thus there is no torque created by the MGR on the globe.”
Hmmm…now Bill writes there is a linear force on the toy globe but there is no torque created on the globe. Why then doesn’t the linear force just move the toy globe linearly off the mgr facing in same direction as at rest? After all F=ma.
Actually, Bill, there is a torque created by the “mgr” spinning up to rotate the globe base once on its axis as observed, in contact due your friend friction, & rotate the globe exactly once on its own axis per orbit of the mgr central axis. The globe won’t rotate on its own axis less than once nor more than once or your friend has let you down. This is all illustrated in Fig. 2(b) to which DREMT agreed.
“this is simply an illusion of the globe spinning on its axis”
An illusion? Bill, be careful around spinning objects such as airplane propellers N,W,E,S back to North which is NOT simply an illusion of the prop. spinning on its own axis just like the globe rotating once on its own axis as observed.
Again, DREMT has tried to teach Bill, so far unsuccessfully:
“If you rotated (toy globe) CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.”
Likewise, if you rotated (toy globe) CCW on its own axis (instead of friction) at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would point N,W,S,E,N so forth rotating once on its axis per orbit and remain orientated towards the same fixed point O throughout the orbit as in Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
If you don’t rotate (toy globe) at all, always points N, the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed star point throughout the orbit as in Fig. 2(a) “translation”.
This is really beginner rigid body dynamics stuff, informed, critical readers know who are the beginners around here.
You have contradicted yourself, Ball4. Agreeing with my comment:
“If you rotated (toy globe) CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.”
is not compatible with:
“If you don’t rotate (toy globe) at all, always points N, the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed star point throughout the orbit”
There is no contradiction DREMT. In both cases the object on the merry-go-round always points N. You can learn how that rigid body dynamics works in Fig. 1(a) “translation”.
“Not according to experiment, as I described.”
If one does an experiment, and it appears to disprove established physics, then that is a major discovery, and it should be published!
Or maybe you just didnt do the experiment right, and prematurely dismissed friction as the cause of its failure.
Hmmm, which is more likely?
If your experimental result cannot be replicated by others, that suggests the latter.
There is a contradiction, Ball4.
ClintR
Like many ‘skeptic’s in this blog (quotes needed), some newcomers in this endless Moon discussion seem to put toy-like explanations (chalk, coins, racehorses, coffee cups) ahead of any scientific results, even those resulting from century-long observation and research.
*
Many ‘skeptic’s doubt about the accuracy of Einstein’s work, explaining that ‘everything made up by Einstein’ can be explained using Newton’s laws.
But suprisingly, when it comes to Moon’s rotation about its axis, Sir Isaac Newton’s wordings about it suddenly are subject to heavy discredit! How interesting.
Yes yes, ‘even a genius like Sir Isaac can go wrong’, the ‘skeptic’s say… It is as simple as that!
*
Newton’s Propositio (he lacked the time to bake that stuff into a final theoretical work) can be found in his original Latin edition of Principia Scientifica of 1687 (propositio XVII, Theorema XV):
https://tinyurl.com/y47u23ay
or in the latest, 1726 edition of his magistral work:
https://tinyurl.com/y9l3n96p
*
Here is a translation into English of Newton’s latest Latin Principia edition by Andrew Motte (1696-1734), published in 1729, and out of which the first official American edition was derived in 1846.
It can be found in
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookIII-Prop2
*
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 Phænomena.
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.
*
{ A possibly useful explanation: in astronomy, the upper focus of an elliptic orbit is where the orbited celestial body is located (the lower focus of course is always empty). }
*
Later, scientists like Lagrange and Laplace continued Newton’s work with theories he couldn’t provide for, and confirmed the point that Moon’s libration is a consequence of its very slow roation speed.
*
I won’t contribute to this imho fully inadequate, meaningless toy-based discussion, and I’m wondering why people like Norman, Ball4, bgdwx and others manage to step into this trap again and again.
Nor would I ever been willing to accept pseudo-arguments like
‘The Moon rotates about the Earth-Moon barycentre‘
This is nothing else than stupid, pseudoskeptic blah blah: this barycentre (which some highly educated ‘skeptic’s incredibly suppose to be in the middle of a line between Moon and Earth) is in fact within Earth, at 4000 km distance from Earth’s centre.
Never and never can any celestial body ‘rotate’ about a point located within the bigger celestial body it orbits on an ellipse!
J.-P. Dehottay
Addendum
It is absolutely evident that when a celestial body is orbited by another body, the two rotate about their common barycentre!
But… that has nothing to do with the discussion concerning Moon’s rotation about the axis passing thru its own centre.
J.-P. D.
Pseudomod
” You completely misunderstand the argument made, and you will never learn. ”
Jesus, what a perfect manipulation of the past…
Don’t bother, Pseudomod!
From your side, I even don’t need any comment. What could I learn from you?
J.-P. D.
binny…”It is absolutely evident that when a celestial body is orbited by another body, the two rotate about their common barycentre!”
So, when an electric motor armature is rotating wrt the stator, it is turning at 3500 rotations per minute. I always thought they called them revolutions. Does the Earth rotate around the Sun or revolve around it. As you can see, an orbit and a revolution are synonymous.
I know where the Earth-moon barycenter is, Bindidon. You completely misunderstand the argument made, and you will never learn. So, why bother?
Should anybody want to reply, and would for that purpose copy and paste parts of the comment: do not forget to first copy the part(s) into something like
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
first, and then paste the correctly UTF-8 encoded result into your stuff.
J.-P. D.
“What could I learn from you?”
What my actual argument is. All you would need to do is read my comments more carefully.
Pseudomod
Don’t tell me that, with ‘ What my actual argument is. ‘, you mean no more than
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475260
Don’t tell me that, Pseudomod.
Because that would be incredibly laughable when put in comparison with what you don’t accept: Newton (see above), Lagrange, Laplace (see my last year’s comments, repeatedly denigrated by JD.Huffman, Robertson – and maybe yourself too?).
J.-P. D.
It’s a simple argument. Which is why it’s rejected, as you demonstrate.
Pseudomod
” It’s a simple argument. Which is why it’s rejected, as you demonstrate. ”
No. You are whining.
It is by no means rejected – let alone would I have demonstrated it – because it is simple, but because it does not at all fit into the discussion, which – whether you like or not – still is by dimensions more centered around the work of
– greatest historical scientists like Cassini, Mercator, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace;
– modern scientists like Kopal, Eckhardt, Micus, Chapront, Moons and many others,
than around superficial, toy-like considerations lacking any scientific relation to Moon’s rotation about the axis passing thru its center of mass.
Keep playing with your toys together with your friends in the kindergarten, Pseudomod. No problem for me.
J'ai fait mon choix, et vous faites le vôtre.
https://tinyurl.com/y7f5qjbd
J.-P. D.
Bindidon provides as strong and emotional as possible argument that there is a scientific basis supporting an appeal to authority.
binny…”– greatest historical scientists like Cassini, Mercator, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace;”
They were all missing one thing, scientific basics that we take for granted today. Furthermore, they lacked the overall awareness that is available to those today who seek it.
I think these guys were magnificent for what they accomplished with so little, especially Newton. I don’t think we are any more intelligent today than any of those gentlemen, we just have a heck of a lot more information.
However, many of them would have given their right arm to have taken courses like I took in engineering. We are the beneficiaries of their genius and we have taken science further than any of them could have imagined.
In engineering, we learned to make freebody diagrams of every problem involving bodies and/or particles in motion or in equilibrium. It was not till I drew a freebody diagram of the Moon problem that I convinced myself there was no way the Moon could turn on its axis while keeping the same face toward the Earth.
That’s why I got out the coins to watch one orbit of one coin about the other. It’s not till you actually do it that it becomes convincing that it is impossible for a tidally-locked Moon to rotate about its axis.
The argument that the Moon is rotating about its axis in different dimensions is false. If it is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame it is not possible for it to rotate about its axis in another.
The appearance of rotation is an illusion. Keep staring at it till that becomes obvious.
hunter
” Bindidon provides as strong and emotional as possible argument that there is a scientific basis supporting an appeal to authority. ”
Yes, hunter.
You just gave here the umpteenth proof that whenever a Pseudoskeptic can’t manage to answer in a meaningful manner, he inevitably will come back to the stupid pseudoargument
” … supporting an appeal to authority. ”
That way, hunter, any reference to science one does not (want to) understand can be automatically denigrated and rejected.
No need for scientific arguments anymore.
Thank you for confirming one of the stupidest among all practices!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
Yes, hunter.
You just gave here the umpteenth proof that whenever a Pseudoskeptic can’t manage to answer in a meaningful manner, he inevitably will come back to the stupid pseudoargument
” … supporting an appeal to authority. ”
That way, hunter, any reference to science one does not (want to) understand can be automatically denigrated and rejected.
No need for scientific arguments anymore.
Thank you for confirming one of the stupidest among all practices!
===================================
Your problem is you read the works of the great scientists like it was the written by the hands of Gods. There is no question why such men are great scientists and that is because of their discoveries. However tell me one single discovery of theirs that depends upon the outcome of this discussion. You read and quote scientific works like a bible thumper reads stories in the bible. The question you always have to ask is the use of a word correct in a study does the outcome of that study depend upon the correct usage. If it all does then you can end this discussion right here and now by bringing it up the specific study that demonstrates that instead of bellyaching all the time about there being a discussion.
Robertson
” They were all missing one thing, scientific basics that we take for granted today. Furthermore, they lacked the overall awareness that is available to those today who seek it.
I think these guys were magnificent for what they accomplished with so little, especially Newton. I dont think we are any more intelligent today than any of those gentlemen, we just have a heck of a lot more information. ”
“we”, Robertson? That certainly does NOT include you.
This “we” includes all scientific workers of the last decades I mentioned above, and who belong to those you deliberately not only ignore, but also permanently discredit and denigrate: Kopal, Eckhardt, Micus, Chapront, Moons, and many many others.
In one of my latest comments
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nKG6Hc2tpolqxW9cghNqZU-2y3LENSWW/view
I mentioned three more of them:
– the French scientist Odile Calamé,
– a group of Japanese scientists around Sho Sasaki, and
– a group of American and Italian scientists around D. G. Currie.
All these people too, you certainly will woefully misconsider, discredit and denigrate.
*
Why do you do that?
You do that because you can never have been at any time an engineer, Robertson.
Not one of all my former engineering colleagues in the university or in the industry behaved like you, let alone did ever show this miserous mix of ignorance and arrogance.
Like me, instead of superficially scanning their papers like you do all the time, all my former colleagues certainly would have carefully read these papers, and – though lacking, like me, the theoretical background needed to fully understand them – they would have understood how far these papers scientifically converge, and acknowledge their results modestly.
You never read anything carefully, Robertson, and thoroughly ignore the meaning of the word ‘modesty’.
That is, in turn, the reason why you keep ignoring nearly everything.
J.-P. D.
hunter
” Your problem is you read the works of the great scientists like it was the written by the hands of Gods. There is no question why such men are great scientists and that is because of their discoveries. However tell me one single discovery of theirs that depends upon the outcome of this discussion. You read and quote scientific works like a bible thumper reads stories in the bible. ”
*
Thank you for intentionally misrepresenting my way of thinking.
No need for any discussion about such dumb, trivial polemic…
J.-P. D.
All your bases belong to us!
OK, Bindidon.
binny…”Many skeptics doubt about the accuracy of Einsteins work, explaining that everything made up by Einstein can be explained using Newtons laws”.
Einstein admitted that the basic math in his theory of relativity could be done using Newtonian mechanics. It’s not till relative motion is calculated at the atomic level that Einstein’s stuff comes into play. But why the heck would anyone want to observe relative motion at the atomic level. Newton works perfectly well in our macro world.
The argument is not about his math, it’s about the inferences he made without math, like time dilation and the change of lengths with velocity.
Gordon Robertson
Einstein’s theories have been confirmed by numerous experimental evidence. Rather than accepting one contrarian on the topic you should do more investigating to find the many experiments done over the years to confirm his ideas are valid. Posting your contrarian opinion is not valid science.
There is a long list of references at the end of this article. The article points out the MANY lines of proof of the ideas (not just one but numerous) all backed by experimental or observational evidence.
Research the actual experiments done then come back later. The handful of Contrarians on the topic do zero research. They observe nothing, set up zero experiments. I wonder why you accept their conclusions as valid or scientific. What science has any of them done? The inventor of the atomic clock? What valid science did he perform to prove Einstein wrong? He offered his unscientific opinion using his name recognition. Other than that what actual science did he perform to prove the theory wrong?
“Idiot testing” is working great. We no longer have to waste time reading/responding to idiots. Like someone said, “You can’t fix stupid!”
Mounting the globe on the outer edge of the merry-go-round is a simple model of Moon’s motion. To make it even better, we can secure the globe so that it can not rotate about its axis. Then, with the merry-go-round revolving, we know for certain the globe is not rotating on its axis. It is only orbiting. If someone is standing off the merry-go-round, the globe will “appear” to be rotating about its axis, but we know it is not really, because it has been secured in place. It can not rotate about its axis. The only motion it has is orbiting.
But, idiots will continue to claim the globe is rotating on its axis, because they can’t think for themselves. They are easily fooled by the illusion. That’s why they’re idiots. They can’t be helped.
ClintR said: To make it even better, we can secure the globe so that it can not rotate about its axis. Then, with the merry-go-round revolving, we know for certain the globe is not rotating on its axis.
If you secure the globe to the mgr then then a unique mark on the globe that points north initially will point west, south, east, and then north again if the mgr rotates counterclockwise. And in a frame fixed to the center of mass of the globe and oriented north the globe will have angular velocity/momentum. This is an inertial frame. Therefore the globe rotates.
I think what you mean to say is that the globe does not have angular velocity/momentum wrt to a frame that is oriented in the direction of motion of the globe. This is a Lagrangian frame. It is non-inertial. You cannot assess rotation in a non-inertial frame.
If an object is physically unable to rotate on its own axis, it cannot be rotating on its own axis, despite whatever illusions your chosen analysis may induce in your mind.
It’s the other way. If you secure the object to the MGR it is physically impossible for it to maintain its rotational inertia and must acquire angular velocity/momentum on its own axis and in an inertial frame.
But, idiots will continue to claim the globe is rotating on its axis, because they can’t think for themselves. They are easily fooled by the illusion. That’s why they’re idiots. They can’t be helped.
You’re not wrong, ClintR.
ClintR needs to watch out around rotating airplane propellers then as there was an unfortunate screen name around here lost his arm in an airplane accident doing a ref. frame experiment & hasn’t been seen since.
That poor screen name also claimed the propeller was not rotating on its own axis and found out about harsh reality the hard way.
IIRC, that is a complete reversal of the actual argument made at the time.
But that is par for the course for Ball4.
I’m still here though, so not a complete reversal, and have both arms attached even though I also stuck my arm in the airplane prop. I just made sure to climb into the safe ref. frame first. The other poor one-armed screenname has inarguably disappeared.
Ball4 says:
ClintR needs to watch out around rotating airplane propellers then as there was an unfortunate screen name around here lost his arm in an airplane accident doing a ref. frame experiment & hasnt been seen since.
That poor screen name also claimed the propeller was not rotating on its own axis and found out about harsh reality the hard way.
==========================
LOL! Its somewhat dependent upon the frame of reference. I am not going to stick my arm into a propeller spinning on its own axis. But if the propeller is sitting on an steel axis welded to the steel deck of a merry-go-round and the mgr is spinning, I won’t hesitate to stick my arm in the propeller and neither should you. I will even do it if the mgr stops.
Though I might not do it if you were on the deck of the mgr too as you might try to give it some torque by giving it a shove.
“I won’t hesitate to stick my arm in the propeller and neither should you”
On that merry-go-round sure, you are safe, when the prop. is spinning same as you in that ref. frame one rotation on both you and its own axis per orbit. Problem is some think that prop. spinning is an illusion and stand on the ground to prove it is an illusion & thereby have lost an arm. Poor departed former screenname, I hope it recovered, it was very funny; a three-ring circus in fact.
Of course, if the prop. is rotating CW once per CCW mgr orbit, just like DREMT explains while DREMT is actually rotating prop. so it points N all the time, you will also lose your arm even while on the merry-go-round. Stay safe Bill. One CCW prop. rotation per CCW orbit like Fig. 2(b) is safe.
The rectangle in Fig. 2(b) physically cannot rotate about its own center of mass.
Yet the rectangle is shown rotating on its own cg from dotted line position to solid line 2(b) “rotation” including translation. This is for commenters that have accomplished the pre-req.s to enter the class & its associated lab course. DREMT demonstrates pre-beginner comments in this complex field of rigid body dynamics.
Note in 2(a) “translation” only there is no rotation of the rectangle on its own axis.
No, it is rotating about point O. Not about its own center of mass.
Yet rectangle does rotate on its own internal axis physically once per orbit of O as shown in figure 2(b) “rotation” and translation. Pretty easy not to miss that, unless you need to write a non-physical answer as you always do. Not rotating on its own internal axis is shown in 2(a) “translation”.
#2
The rectangle in Fig. 2(b) physically cannot rotate about its own center of mass.
The blog’s scanner is today in a bad mood again.
Thus:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nKG6Hc2tpolqxW9cghNqZU-2y3LENSWW/view
J.-P. D.
Oh Noes! I forgot that Do.uglas is a problem here… You all know why, hu?
*
For interested persons: a few articles concerning the influence of Lunar Laser Ranging on the computation of Moon’s rotation, and of libration phenomena
{ Nota bene: as opposed to the historical ‘libration in longitude’ which is only apparent, and was identified by Cassini and Newton to be a consequence of Moon’s rotation about its center of mass, the librations discussed in the papers below are real oscillations, detected in / computed out the LLR data. }
*
– (1) Free librations of the moon determined by an analysis of laser range measurements
Odile Calame (1976)
https://tinyurl.com/y7uz8xwy
(Click on the document’s first page, and then on ‘Send PDF’ to get the whole PDF print-ready)
*
– (2) Lunar Gravity and Rotation Measurements by Japanese Lunar Landing Missions
Sho Sasaki & al. (2012)
https://tinyurl.com/y8evwosn
*
– (3) A Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector Array for the 21st Century
D. G. Currie & al. (2013)
https://tinyurl.com/y9fknxaj
*
Apart from the hint on a proof of the Equivalence Principle by LLR data analysis, document (3) was interesting because it contains a hint on a rather invisible similarity between Earth and Moon.
” The longitude mode is a pendulum-like oscillation of the rotation of the (polar) principal axis associated with [fluid core, own emphasis] moment C. … The lunar wobble mode is analogous
to the Earth’s polar motion, that is, the Chandler wobble , … ”
As Newton wrote in the “Propositio XVII Theorema XV” in the Third Book of his Principia:
” Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse… ”
i.e.
” The daily motions of the planets are uniform… ”
Yeah. Even in wobbling at the Poles.
J.-P. D.
I wouldn’t wonder if in the near future, some here who
– are totally convinced of the Moon being unable to rotate about the axis passing thru its center of mass
– suddenly will start believing that Earth cannot do as well.
J.-P. D.
Well I think ClintR was trying to state just that.
ClintR May 22, 2020 at 11:49 AM: If the lunar astronauts saw stars moving, it was due to the fact that Moon is orbiting. Same with daytime and nighttime.
By this logic the Earth experiences day/night not because it rotates but because it orbits. I asked for clarification twice and got no response.
Bindidon leaves a cow dropping, and bdgwx can’t wait to feast on it.
I believe that’s called a “symbiotic relationship”.
ClintR
” I believe that’s called a “symbiotic relationship”. ”
… … and why doesn’t the same remark apply to you? Has anyone forced you to add your little heap, as if you were Robertson’s dog?
You namely seem to have a much deeper “symbiotic relationship” to him than anyone would have to me.
Because you too name persons quickly an idiot when their meaning differs a bit too much from yours. That is definitely a hint.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon and bdgwx’s comments reveal they don’t understand the “Non-Spinner” position.
It has to be down to pure orneriness or total blind inculcation at this point. They can’t possibly be that dense. . . .or can they be?
Without a single even remotely logical point for many replies now its finally clear to me that the cannonball will remain oriented with the same particles on the bottom pointed towards the body it orbits with the only variation being on the irregular shape of an ellipse in the orbital plane.
As I stated earlier I wasn’t sure about that but now I am. Finding the correct frame (non-inertial frame) is the correct frame and fits my current understanding of the Coriolis Effect. . . .which by the way provides for the general direction of the great thermohaline ocean currents as well as our weather systems. Those move and rotate because they have initial forces causing them to start moving, which generally speaking is the difference in temperatures by latitude. the moon and the toy globe and the chalk circle all lack something to create that motion.
I would like to thank DREMT, Clint, and Gordon for adding important and revealing details so that the simple physics here can be understood. Beyond the exhaustion of repetition, which actually is the process well understood in policy making and how you move the needle there now all thats left to do is figure out what is important about all this. LOL! Oh yeah thats right if you are going to engineer a mgr, you don’t need a power train to get the white horse to start spinning, unless of course you want it to spin on its own axis.
Pseudomod
” Bindidon and bdgwx’s comments reveal they don’t understand the “Non-Spinner” position. ”
*
… and why doesnt the same remark apply to you?
Do you understand anything of all has been discovered since Cassini, Pseudomod? I have some little doubt.
You are simply totally fixated on things you mainly believe because they help you avoiding to ‘appeal to authority’ aka to ‘accept what scientists write’.
*
Let me replicate this below.
“The Illusion of the Axial Rotation of the Moon
1. It is well known since the discovery of Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same face towards the earth.
2. This is explained by stating that while passing once around its mother-planet the lunar globe performs just one revolution on its axis.
3. The spinning motion of a heavenly body must necessarily undergo modifications in the course of time, being either retarded by resistances internal or external, or accelerated owing to shrinkage and other causes.
4. An unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower.
5. But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.
6. The truth is, the so-called ‘axial rotation’ of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning.
7. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve.
8. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
9. The unfailing test of the spinning of a mass is, however, the existence of energy of motion. The moon is not possest of such vis viva. If it were the case then a revolving body as moon would contain mechanical energy other than that of which we have experimental evidence.
10. Irrespective of this so exact a coincidence between the axial and orbital periods is, in itself, immensely improbable for this is not the permanent condition towards which the system is tending.
11. Any axial rotation of a mass left to itself, retarded by forces external or internal, must cease. Even admitting its perfect control by tides the coincidence would still be miraculous.
Nikola Tesla, Electrical Experimenter, February, 1919 ”
*
A. And you did never ask yourself why the points (3), (4), (11) shall hold for the Moon, but not for Earth or any other planet in our celestial system?
Really, Pseudomod? You never did??
B. Where is the proof for point (9) ?
C. Testla was really a clever experimenter and inventer.
This is the reason why I can’t understand how he did not manage to view point (4) differently, namely that the current lunar situation is not due to an ‘unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution’, but rather is due to the fact that its rotation speed was higher before and becomes slower and slower.
D. What, do you think, would have Tesla written if he had had in hands the Lunar Laser Ranging data collected since decades?
Do you think he would have rejected that data like you do because that would be an ‘appeal to authority’ ?
*
Tesla saves you from the need for evidence and you therefore gullibly follow his reasoning. As a retired engineer however, it disappointed me immensely.
J.-P. D.
#2
Bindidon and bdgwx’s comments reveal they don’t understand the “Non-Spinner” position.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Bindidon and bdgwxs comments reveal they dont understand the Non-Spinner position.
===============================
I suspect the reason is the topic is so arcane it doesn’t present itself in a lot of ways. I suspect a lot physicists go through life believing a real force pushed them left in a car turning right and obviously even if they got that they have failed to see the applicability to rotational forces which is only slightly more complex.
Reading through the Tesla manifesto again, I notice something else he was not aware of.
The earth-moon barycenter!
So add that to the two axes, one the moon rotates around and one the moon revolves around, that Tesla was unaware of. See #8.
Kinda makes you wonder
He mentions that in the second paper.
So he went of half-cocked on the first paper?
Maybe you shouldn’t use him as a source.
He has been discredited, maybe he could fix your motor, but he was never a qualified astronomer.
He kept it simple on the first paper. You should read it, Bindidon only quoted the introduction.
Bill,
Newtons laws of motion fail to work in non-inertial reference frames.
Non-inertial frames cannot be used to locate celestial objects.
And all sorts of fictitious non-intuitive forces arise. Eg. orbiting a planet and there seems to be a force pushing you away from the planet??
These are reasons why Astronomy prefers inertial frames.
Your gravitational attraction to non-inertial frames is leading you to fictitious feeling of comprehension, but in reality it leads one to confusion.
Tesla is accepted as an authority on the Moon.
But 9,999 astronomers who disagree with him, not so much.
With these guys its all about finding one person who agrees with them, and then stop looking.
Nate says:
May 24, 2020 at 9:30 AM
Bill,
Newtons laws of motion fail to work in non-inertial reference frames.
Non-inertial frames cannot be used to locate celestial objects.
And all sorts of fictitious non-intuitive forces arise. Eg. orbiting a planet and there seems to be a force pushing you away from the planet??
These are reasons why Astronomy prefers inertial frames.
Your gravitational attraction to non-inertial frames is leading you to fictitious feeling of comprehension, but in reality it leads one to confusion.
===================================
Nate they are designed to fail to avoid leading oneself to the wrong conclusion. However, the frame is for the forces inside of the frame, ultimately that frame exists in an inertial reference frame so it can be used to locate objects in space etc. like determining what something is actually rotating around.
Here we are dealing with a fictitious larger moment of inertia for the globes on an mgr so that they rotate exactly one time per orbit.
As Wiki puts it: ‘In flat spacetime, the use of non-inertial frames can be avoided if desired. Measurements with respect to non-inertial reference frames can always be transformed to an inertial frame, incorporating directly the acceleration of the non-inertial frame as that acceleration as seen from the inertial frame. This approach avoids use of fictitious forces (it is based on an inertial frame, where fictitious forces are absent, by definition) but it may be less convenient from an intuitive, observational, and even a calculational viewpoint.’
“However, the frame is for the forces inside of the frame”
Yes, and fictitious forces are in there. It is useful if you want to know what happens inside a spacecraft in orbit.
Not good for describing an orbit looking from the outside and trying to analyze with Newtons Laws.
“ultimately that frame exists in an inertial reference frame so it can be used to locate objects in space etc. like determining what something is actually rotating around.”
You have to pick a frame.
Inertial frames go back to Galileo. He understood that the laws of physics apply in any inertial frame.
Inertial is the universal one that is used to locate everything in space and define how it is moving, describing the shape of orbits, how fast something is rotating about what axis, where the axes are pointed, etc.
All astronomical parameters are using the inertial frame of the stars. It just makes everything easier.
Aaron S
On May 4, 2020 at 8:33 AM you wrote:
” Bindidon,
On the Arctic/ Antarctic graph which color is which? Antarctic is mislabeled as red I believe but I think I understand and just want to confirm.
Do you have the citations for each trend you shared?
I’d love to see why the 1940s are deleted from the glacial ice trends because it is unfortunately not there and is the relevant period to my statement (especially given the symmetrical smoothing eliminates most of the 1950s data into one data point without a trend).
It very well maybe just the start of both data sets started in the 50s, but it is an interesting point to start a data set so my gut tells me to explore more. ”
I apologize for having overlooked this.
Indeed, Antarctic should have been labeled ‘blue’. And the label 1979-2019 below the plots was wrong as well.
Here is a graph starting in 1901 (starting in 1950 had nothing to do with any intention to hide):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLBjhIqMG9pjCexciUIVWQox8x96eT1m/view
Don’t ask me why the data in the past look so flat…
Source:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
Yes: you have to do a lot by your own – V & V included – between that corner and the graph you see.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
It is for me inimaginable how people can write:
” Without a single even remotely logical point for many replies now its finally clear to me that the cannonball will remain oriented with the same particles on the bottom pointed towards the body it orbits with the only variation being on the irregular shape of an ellipse in the orbital plane. ”
and thus manifestly think that such a simple-minded, toy-like thought can be more relevant than the evaluation of 40 years of data coming from Lunar Laser Ranging performed in New Mexico and in France?
*
Upon that, I now definitely stop writing about Moon’s rotation, it gets too dumb for me.
Back to SAMURAI and his North Atlantic Cold Blob, that sounds much more interesting to me.
J.-P. D.
Dropping more cow pies, Bindidon?
It must have been something you ate….
Bindidon says:
and thus manifestly think that such a simple-minded, toy-like thought can be more relevant than the evaluation of 40 years of data coming from Lunar Laser Ranging performed in New Mexico and in France?
===============================
Perhaps thats because the moon stopped spinning on its axis a lot longer than 40 years ago?
Courtesy of Dr. Hausfather here is an update of the CMIP5 vs observation comparison as of March 2020.
https://i.imgur.com/99EWaak.jpg
https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-first-quarter-of-2020-is-second-warmest-on-record
So they don’t see the temperature drop coming.
Anyway , that ENSO forecast still takes the cake
There appears to be up to -0.3C of downward potential in the 95% envelope. May you were looking at something different?
Let’s see what happens with ENSO for the remainder of 2020. So far the ONI has averaged 0.53 and with a significant drop in SSTs in region 3.4 recently I’m guessing this average will be pulled down quite a bit in the coming months.
Bindidon says:
======================
Its also the case that the moon spinning or not on its axis is really only relevant to such things as creators of worlds and some machines, and folks studying things like the Coriolis Effect and oceanography. No doubt a missed a few but it’s a small population.
The Moon spin is a legit question as some people have genuine trouble understanding it , however arguing with an EarthFlatter troll like DREMT and the likes is just a time wasting exercise in futility
Eben
we rarely agree, but today we do.
J.-P. D.
eben, why learn any science when you can just fake it?
You’ve got Bindidon fooled.
That wasn’t too hard, was it?
bill…”and folks studying things like the Coriolis Effect”
Glad you brought that up, the Coriolis Effect is an APPARENT motion, like the Moon’s rotation on its axis. The Coriolis force is referred to as a fictitious force because there is no force there. It APPEARS as if a force is causing a mass to move in a curve whereas it is the good old human mind having an illusion….again!!!!
If you could park yourself above a merry-go-round with a decent angular velocity, and someone threw a ball straight out from the MGR, the ball would appear to you as having a curved trajectory. The ball is actually moving straight out from the MGR and there are no forces on it laterally. It is the illusion created by the human mind that the ball is curving due to the relative motion of the MGR and the ball.
Same with the Moon’s APPARENT rotation about its axis. If you keep staring at the motion, as has been depicted in some gifs posted here a while back, you can see that all particles on the Moon are turning in concentric circles.
bill…”Its also the case that the moon spinning or not on its axis is really only relevant to such things as creators of worlds”
The relevance to me is that the spinners are also the climate alarmists. I don’t think that is coincidence, they have a hard time focusing on real physics. All of them exhibit a strong appeal to authority.
Yes I pointed out to Bindidon that he read the papers of physicists like it was written by the hand of Gods. This is the most fundamental error in physics where people assume things that have never been tested simply because some great physicist said something like the moon spins on its own axis in a discussion about something totally irrelevant to whether it does or not. We see a lot of that in the climate change literature and these guys come here spouting it all like it was some immutable truth. Michael Crichton’s State of Fear elevated all that to something being taken advantage of by a group of world terrorists intent on creating massive catastrophes for the purpose of proving it all ala a typical James Bond type villain.
OK lets sum this up and see where we are at. We have two schools of thought. So lets represent them for the purpose of some calculations.
We have two identical merry-go-rounds. Each has 20 toy globes mounted like equally spaced around the outer rim of the mgrs mounted via an axis rod welded to the mgr deck.
The only difference between the two mgrs is one has the globes mounted on friction free bearings and the other has the globes welded to the axis rods so they can’t spin independently.
now we know to spin a globe requires some torque.
So the school of thought that thinks the globes will not rotate on the mgr with the friction free bearings when the mgrs start up, that means it will take less torque to start that mgr than the one with the non-turning globes. the latter mgr also must supply the torque to move the welded globes into their forced rotation.
i think we should probably consult an engineer on this to determine how that would be accounted for
bill h…”i think we should probably consult an engineer on this to determine how that would be accounted for”
You rang? I have already proved to the spinners their errors, using good engineering practices, and they still don’t get it. Even Nicola Tesla laid it out for them and they don’t get it.
I might listen to someone who is living and has an engineering degree, unfortunately Tesla fails on both accounts.
Gordon, where did you get your engineering degree?
You can do it yourself Bill, with the aid of the web site you quoted before:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/rotational-kinetic-energy/
E = ½Iω^2
So:
a) Calculate the whole MGR for the bearing case.
b) Calculate the rotation of a globe around its own axis.
Is a+20b > a ?
gee svante the moment of inertia is the same for both mgrs!
No, the globes can hold their own kinetic energy.
The formula says energy is the square of radial velocity.
The frictionless globes face the same point on the horizon, that’s zero additional energy.
You need a torque to turn them, that gives them more energy.
Now calculate energy for 1000 rpm vs. 10000 rpm.
They can have their own kinetic energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus
Svante I calculated the moment of inertia for both mgrs and it came out the same.
Now you want me to spin up the globes on the frictionless ball bearings?
Yes, see if it comes for free.
“i think we should probably consult an engineer on this to”
Or better yet, laws of physics.
Check parallel axis thm.
Rotational inertia of an off axis object is its point mass inertia PLUS its inertia around its center of mass Icm.
That can be understood via energy. The enrgy also has two parts, energy from orbital motion of the cm, plus its rotational energy around its own axis.
If globes have no rotation around their cm axes, the kinetic energy is lower.
If lower energy, then less work had to be done to turn MGR. Less work means less torque.
See parallel axis thm https://youtu.be/JrkimXqnCLw
but svante the moment of inertia is the same for both the mgr with the frictionless bearings and the mgr with unturning bearings!!!
if i put an additional spin force on the globes with frictionless bearings they will be rotating at 2 times the speed of the mgrs.
“but svante the moment of inertia is the same for both the mgr with the frictionless bearings and the mgr with unturning bearings!!!”
No, you forgot to account for the 20 holes where the friction free bearings are mounted as they do not have same local inertia as does the rest of the solid merry-go-round floor.
Nate says:
May 24, 2020 at 7:07 AM
i think we should probably consult an engineer on this to
Or better yet, laws of physics.
Check parallel axis thm.
Rotational inertia of an off axis object is its point mass inertia PLUS its inertia around its center of mass Icm.
That can be understood via energy. The enrgy also has two parts, energy from orbital motion of the cm, plus its rotational energy around its own axis.
===============================
I am not going to dispute that. That all seems likely to be buried in calculating the moment of inertia for the entire mgr. (e.g. the turning of the cannonball in its rotational inertia calculation is the simplest reaction to the force of gravity as the force of gravity includes the rotational inertia to turn the cannonball without spin). Your one and only problem is you are wedded to a single perspective on that matter and are letting that perspective override the obvious physics.
the point here isn’t what the energy adds up to. or what it is translatable to. The point is which axis is the moon rotating on and whether and whether or not that changes anything. Its an arcane question but an arcane question with an obvious answer. What has been pointed out here is how you guys believe stuff in science just because somebody says so.
The proof is in the moment of inertia to put the two kinds of mgrs into motion. . . .your fidget spinner notwithstanding. Unless of course you want to dispute the science around the equation for the moment of inertia.
bill hunter says:
“The proof is in the moment of inertia to put the two kinds of mgrs into motion”.
1) The platform has the same inertia in both cases.
2) The globes have their own inertia depending on spin rate.
3) You have to add 1) and 2) to get a total.
3) The globes spin differently in the two cases.
4) So the sum total must differ.
Please be concise.
“…the other has the globes welded to the axis rods so they can’t spin independently.”
So on this MGR the globes will definitely not be rotating on their own axes, as the MGR rotates. On the other MGR, in order for a point on each globe to remain facing the same point on the horizon would require the globes to rotate on their own axes at the same rate as the MGR, but in the opposite direction.
A good example, bill hunter, but idiots won’t understand the physics.
Your example has one “mgr” with globes that can rotate about their axes, and one mgr with globes that can not rotate about their axes, as I understand it. So merely starting the mgr, you would not see any difference in the globes. Both would be orbiting, not rotating about their axes. To make them rotate would require torque. The rotation of the mgr does not apply torque to the globes, only a net force on their center of mass. To produce torque, the force must be applied other off center.
Idiots believe the globes that can not rotate on their axes will be rotating on their axes. That’s why they are idiots.
“The rotation of the mgr does not apply torque to the globes”
Only the imaginary ones with friction free bearings have no torque applied about their own axes. All those N pointing friction free bearing globes remain pointing N with no applied torque; they only “translate” do not rotate on their own axes as in text book Fig. 2(a) “translation”.
The globes welded to the axis rods so they can’t spin independently are observed to all rotate CCW 360 N,W,S,E,N in one real merry-go-round CCW rotation on its own axis through point O as in text book Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
Both Bill and ClintR need to study up on physics of text book rigid body dynamics. Once they pass that test they will understand the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of earth.
Not so much DREMT, as DREMT is correct, understands at least some rigid body dynamics:
4:02pm: “If you rotated (toy globe) CW at the same rate the merry-go-round rotates CCW then the toy globe would remain orientated towards the same fixed point throughout the orbit.”
ClintR and Bill need to first understand that DREMT’s point is correct.
only one conclusion is possible-by the very physics of the great masters!
the rotational inertia of the mgr is unaffected by globes on frictionless bearings!
leading to the conclusion that that the rotational energy to cause a moon to orbit is a ‘turning’ force as well!!! so the cannonball will circle the globe making one apparent revolution in time with that cannonball.
Tesla is right! and all you need is elementary physics to demonstrate it!
these guys would have us adding energy to spin up the steel plating on the mgr deck for every chalked circle we could draw on it!!! what an insane idea!
Bill, properly account for the 20 holes due the friction free bearings and see what you get.
Ball4 says:
Bill, properly account for the 20 holes due the friction free bearings and see what you get.
———————
Really flopping like a dead fish now. The welds on the fixed globes look, feel, have the same dimensions and mass as the friction free bearings.
“these guys would have us adding energy to spin up the steel plating on the mgr deck for every chalked circle we could draw on it!!! what an insane idea!”
Yes, they believe a chalk circle drawn on the edge of the MGR deck is rotating on its own axis. Truly crazy.
Actually truly like the text book Fig. 2(b) “rotation” example where the rectangle rotates on its own axis once per orbit of O.
It physically cannot rotate on its own axis.
Correct one can only imagine an axis following the moon around in its orbit around which the moon rotates. But any such rotation produced independently of such an orbit needs additional energy applied to induce.
It has been shown no such additional energy is needed beyond that measured for inducing the orbit. Thus the conclusion is clear the moon rotates about its common barycenter with the earth and not on its axis (except in an imaginary and ghostly way)
The additional rotational energy was provided for the earth orbiting moon at its inception. Moon rotates around an axis through its N & S poles keeping one hemisphere facing earth since it is observed to rotate on its own axis once per orbit of earth on a different axis.
See rigid body dynamics Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
…in which it is physically impossible for the rectangle to rotate about its own cm. It rotates about point O, not its own axis.
DREMT means where the rectangle has rotated on its own axis about 45 degrees from dotted line position to solid line position in addition to orbiting point O. DREMT cannot understand simple rigid body dynamics text, denies his own eyes. This is helpful to understand DREMT has little credibility in the field of physics.
The rectangle does not rotate on its own axis in Fig. 2(a) “translation”.
My own eyes clearly see it has rotated about point O, not on its own axis.
Yes, I already stated that DREMT denies his own eyes see what anyone that understands rigid body dynamics does clearly see: the rectangle in 2(b) rotation rotating some 45 degrees on its own axis.
DREMT continues to prove DREMT has little credibility in rigid body dynamics. Fig. 2(a) “translation” does clearly show a rectangle not rotating on its own axis just translating while orbiting.
My advice: DREMT should just repeat comments showing DREMT’s lack of crediblity in rigid body dynamics.
It is rotating 45 degrees about point O. It physically cannot rotate about its own cm due to the rigid rod connecting the rectangle to point O. Relentlessly insult me all you want. The rectangle, like the chalk circle, is not rotating on its own axis.
Thanks for following my advice DREMT. No insults, just facts.
Rectangle in rigid body dynamics Fig. 2(b) “rotation” is clearly seen orbiting ~45 degrees about external axis through point O, and rotating about its own internal axis ~45 degrees which is what the text author is attempting, but failing, to teach DREMT.
Rectangle in rigid body dynamics Fig. 2(a) “translation” is clearly seen orbiting ~45 degrees about external axis & only translating so NOT rotating about its own internal axis which is what the text author is attempting, but failing, to teach DREMT.
My advice: DREMT should just repeat comments showing DREMT’s lack of credibility in rigid body dynamics.
The text author is showing that the rectangle in 2(b) is “in rotation” about point O, with all of its particles moving in concentric circles about point O. Only at zero axial rotations per orbit do the paths not cross, in this manner. Sorry Ball4, but you are trying to redefine pure rotation out of existence. That’s not going to happen I’m afraid.
Thanks again for following my advice DREMT.
If Fig. 2(b) “rotation” were illustrating pure rotation of the rectangle, then its cg would not have translated from its starting position. I’ll be even more clear in the hope DREMT can learn what the text author is teaching:
Rectangle in rigid body dynamics Fig. 2(b) “rotation” is clearly seen orbiting ~45 degrees about external axis through point O thus translating its cg to the right and up, AND rotating about its own internal axis ~45 degrees which is what the text author is attempting, but failing, to teach DREMT that this is NOT pure rotation of the rectangle.
My advice: DREMT should just keep repeating comments showing DREMT’s lack of credibility in rigid body dynamics until DREMT learns what the text author is teaching.
Incorrect, as explained.
Thanks again for following my advice DREMT.
That just adds to show you haven’t learned from text author and improved your credibility in rigid body dynamics. Keep repeating your comments proving my case.
Grow up, Ball4.
hunter
” We have two schools of thought. ”
No.
You have three groups:
– (1) two based on considering a mgr or other similar toy-like ‘experiment’s:
— (1a) one thinks that the globes rotate about their axis
— (1b) one thinks they don’t
– (2) one based on reviewing what has been written by scientists, termed by group (1b) as ‘appealing to authority’.
I don’t belong to (1) because in my opinion, none of the two alternatives can explain anything.
There is no reason at all to simply pretend that the Moon would have no rotational angular momentum: all particles in accretion disks out of which celestial bodies are born have both orbital and rotational angular momenta.
Even asteroids have a rotational angular momentum.
J.-P. D.
One rotation of an orbiting object around an orbited body encompasses one apparent rotation around the orbiting objects axis.
without the need of an additional force for the rotation.
Thus that rotation is around the common barycenter. So what has happened you guys are just bible thumping some scientific-related dogma and all your arguments for a need of an additional force to create that motion is all just pure BS.
You either have to attack the classic physics formula for moment of inertia I=mr2 or you need to attack the Law of Energy Conservation.
I call Checkmate!
bill hunter says:
“One rotation of an orbiting object around an orbited body encompasses one apparent rotation around the orbiting objects axis.”
You’re funny!
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
One rotation of an orbiting object around an orbited body encompasses one apparent rotation around the orbiting objects axis.
Youre funny!
===============================
I gave you the proof Svante and you are just going to ignore it to bury your head in an appeal to authority sandpile like Bindidon?
In other words, the moon rotates about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Nope,
The moon revolves around the earth-moon barycenter and rotates around its own axis.
Sorry Charlie.
–bobdroege says:
May 24, 2020 at 8:04 PM
Nope,
The moon revolves around the earth-moon barycenter and rotates around its own axis.–
It’s own axis is about 1.5 degrees and it’s 1.5 degrees angle to Moon and Sun Barycenter.
Yes?
Something like that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
“The moon revolves around the earth-moon barycenter and rotates around its own axis.”
But “revolves about the Earth-moon barycenter”, as astronomy defines it, is a different motion to “rotates about the Earth-moon barycenter”.
“around its own axis.
Its own axis is about 1.5 degrees ”
Its AXIAL TILT is 6.7 degrees, ie its rotational axis is 6.7 degrees from its orbital axis.
Yeah, we get it DREMPTY, you define things differently than the astronomers.
You should use their definitions but for the kung fu death grip.
You define non rotating as what the moon is doing, so by your definition there are 364 1/4 days in the year.
The first one is free?
Actually blob, according to sidereal time there are 366.25 days in a year. The way I see it there are 365.25 days in a year.
So the earth is different from the moon, you don’t count the first one for the moon, but you do for the earth.
You are not making any sense.
Try researching sidereal time. Then maybe you will understand.
Speaking of the sidereal rotation period….it is 27.3 days for the Moon.
Nate says:
Its own axis is about 1.5 degrees
Its AXIAL TILT is 6.7 degrees, ie its rotational axis is 6.7 degrees from its orbital axis.
=====================
Is that where its bulge is Nate?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Try researching sidereal time. Then maybe you will understand.
=====================
Right! Its not confusing if you do the research.
Earth has 365.24 synodic rotations per year (rotations relative to the sun, solar days)
and 366.24 sidereal rotations per year (rotations relative to the fixed stars)
Moon has 12.37 synodic rotations per yr (rotations relative to the sun-earth alignment, solar days)
and 13.37 sidereal rotations per year (rotations relative to the fixed stars)
The difference is the one orbital rotation per year which puts some of the sidereal days which are shorter than a solar day incrementally ending at different times during the day during the rotation instead of at one time on the clock.
An adjustment astronomers have to make to calibrate to the fixed stars from actual days starting every day at the same time.
That’s right bill. The Moon rotates 13.37 times/yr.
…but not on its own axis.
To remove DREMT’s continual confusion over which axis, bdgwx means the Moon rotates on its own axis 13.37 times/yr; once on moon’s own axis per orbit of earth axis.
B Hunter’s finally catching on. The difference between the two numbers for rotations per year is due to the fact that one coordinate system is rotating and the other is not rotating because it is an inertial reference frame based on the stars. To define or measure the rotation of the Moon, one must begin by specifying a coordinate system which is an inertial reference frame.
All the posts by the “non-spinners” about MGRs fail to understand the difference. Using the MGR as a reference frame is not a proper inertial reference to consider the rotation of the globes. Step off the MGR onto the the Earth (i.e., a local inertial frame) and the globes may exhibit different rate of rotation than the MGR.
More circular logic from Swanson.
Ball4 says:
To remove DREMTs continual confusion over which axis, bdgwx means the Moon rotates on its own axis 13.37 times/yr; once on moons own axis per orbit of earth axis.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunters finally catching on. The difference between the two numbers for rotations per year is due to the fact that one coordinate system is rotating and the other is not rotating because it is an inertial reference frame based on the stars. To define or measure the rotation of the Moon, one must begin by specifying a coordinate system which is an inertial reference frame.
All the posts by the non-spinners about MGRs fail to understand the difference. Using the MGR as a reference frame is not a proper inertial reference to consider the rotation of the globes. Step off the MGR onto the the Earth (i.e., a local inertial frame) and the globes may exhibit different rate of rotation than the MGR.
===========================================
well perhaps we can say it does both. It orbits around the moon/earth barycenter, an actual location in space undefined by the orbit or rotation of the moon and,
it rotates around its axis, an imaginary line in space that is defined as any spot on the moons orbit that the moon happens to be at. And that any object not rotating about its axis is simply not an object in this universe.
Yeah I get it. You guys have your heads in the stars.
“(moon) rotates around its axis, an imaginary line in space that is defined as any spot on the moons orbit”
bill, no, moon’s rotational axis is a line through moon’s N pole & S pole. An object does not have such an axis or N,S poles if it is not rotating on its own internal axis.
The moon remains oriented a certain way whilst it orbits, relative to its orbital plane. From this, a North/South Pole and supposed axis of rotation has been located, based on the erroneous assumption that the moon rotates about this axis. It does not.
“it rotates around its axis, an imaginary line in space that is defined as any spot on the moons orbit that the moon happens to be at.”
Yep, just like the Earth does in its orbit around the Sun. Every day the Earth’s axis travels 1.6 million miles thru space, while it makes one rotation around that axis.
I don’t think that bothers you guys.
DREMT: “the erroneous assumption that the moon rotates about this axis. It does not.”
Put down the planchette. Move away from the ouija board.
Nate says:
it rotates around its axis, an imaginary line in space that is defined as any spot on the moons orbit that the moon happens to be at.
Yep, just like the Earth does in its orbit around the Sun. Every day the Earths axis travels 1.6 million miles thru space, while it makes one rotation around that axis.
I dont think that bothers you guys.
============================
No doesn’t bother me at all Nate.
I should have replied earlier:
–bobdroege says:
May 24, 2020 at 9:21 PM
Something like that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
—
Yes, that drawing includes all the needed elements.
“You either have to attack the classic physics formula for moment of inertia I=mr2 or you need to attack the Law of Energy Conservation.”
Bill, where have you shown these?
None of us have done either of those. I think you have ignored what we actually said.
Simple Nate. You first calculate the moments of inertia for the 2 mgrs, the one with free spinning globes that you folks said would not spin even if the mgr was spinning. And the other moment of inertia for the mgr with the fixed globes.
From that exercise you will find the moment of inertia is the same for both mgrs. For this calculation it doesn’t matter if the globes are spinning or not.
then you look into your physics knowledge bag (if you have one) and note that to spin any globe you need a force to overcome the moment of intertia. But if the moment of intertia is identical for both mgrs you don’t need a force to overcome the moment of inertia to get one revolution of the object for each revolution of the mgr.
A non-inertial frame of reference will demonstrate that the object is not rotating around its axis, except in an imaginary ghostly way deceptive to the eye, but instead is rotating in the same way the mgr is rotating which is around the axis of the mgr.
And you know this to be the case because of the Law of Conservation Energy.
“From that exercise you will find the moment of inertia is the same for both mgrs.”
No bill, you forgot to account for the rotational inertia difference of the free spinning globes vs. the welded on globes.
++
bill,
With loose objects, you get different moment of inertia and kinetic energy than with screwed down objects. Just reality.
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476567
Ball4 says:
May 25, 2020 at 4:10 PM
From that exercise you will find the moment of inertia is the same for both mgrs.
No bill, you forgot to account for the rotational inertia difference of the free spinning globes vs. the welded on globes.
====================================
well don’t sit there like a bump on a log, do it! And show your work so we can see what you did.
You can do it yourself Bill, with the aid of the web site you quoted before:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/rotational-kinetic-energy/
E = ½Iω^2
So:
a) Calculate the whole MGR for the bearing case.
b) Calculate the rotation of a globe around its own axis.
Is a+20b = a ?
“Your one and only problem is you are wedded to a single perspective on that matter and are letting that perspective override the obvious physics.”
Bill,
There is only one correct answer for the kinetic energy, and only one correct answer for the amount of work required to get the object rotating at some w. This is found using correct physics, which I am wedded to.
The correct answer must account for the fact that the orientation of the globes must remain fixed to the stars, UNLESS, a torque is acting on them.
This is a straightforward requirement of Newton’s Law for Rotation (link).
Frictionless bearings cannot transfer torque, only force. The globes can be pushed sideways by a force acting thru their center of mass, and make those CM orbit along with the MGR.
This is why the parallel-axis-thm has two terms contributing to the rotational inertia. One for the orbit of CM, MR^2, and one for rotation AROUND the CM, Icm.
If the globes’ orientation is fixed, they are not rotating around their CM. Therefore there is NO contribution from Icm.
The total I and total KE of the MGR must be lower with frictionless bearings.
‘Frictionless bearings cannot transfer torque, only force.’
And this is very easy to see with Svante’s experiment.
Even simpler, just float a small cup in a big bowl of water. Slowly walk with the bowl and make some turns. You will see that the cup will not turn when you turn. Walk slowly in a circle, it will not rotate with the bowl.
It wants to keep its orientation fixed, though it can be moved sideways (translated).
Nate says:
There is only one correct answer for the kinetic energy, and only one correct answer for the amount of work required to get the object rotating at some w. This is found using correct physics, which I am wedded to.
=========================
So here you are once again ascribing to kinetic energy in excess of the kinetic energy possessed by the moons forward velocity and mass. Is this the imaginary energy you expect to warm the world?
=========================
=========================
Nate says:
The correct answer must account for the fact that the orientation of the globes must remain fixed to the stars, UNLESS, a torque is acting on them.
============================
Thats real interesting Nate. But you said: ‘Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.’
So did this come to you via the word of God?
=========================
=========================
Nate says:
This is a straightforward requirement of Newtons Law for Rotation (link).
========================
I am perfectly aware that if you put a spin on the moon you will need some energy.
=========================
=========================
Nate says:
Frictionless bearings cannot transfer torque, only force. The globes can be pushed sideways by a force acting thru their center of mass, and make those CM orbit along with the MGR.
This is why the parallel-axis-thm has two terms contributing to the rotational inertia. One for the orbit of CM, MR^2, and one for rotation AROUND the CM, Icm.
If the globes orientation is fixed, they are not rotating around their CM. Therefore there is NO contribution from Icm.
The total I and total KE of the MGR must be lower with frictionless bearings.
==========================
Since you said: ‘Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.’
So did this come to you via the word of God?
=========================
=========================
Nate says:
May 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM
bill,
With loose objects, you get different moment of inertia and kinetic energy than with screwed down objects. Just reality.
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476567
=======================================
Thats real interesting Nate. But you said: Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.
So did this come to you via the word of God?
‘So did this come to you via the word of God?’
Pretty sad rebuttal, Bill.
Where did you get your result that clamping down the globes makes NO difference, word of God??
In my case it just came the human-discovered laws of physics, as I clearly explained.
The parallel axis theorem, for one. Look it up and you can learn.
Nate says:
May 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM
bill,
With loose objects, you get different moment of inertia and kinetic energy than with screwed down objects. Just reality.
=======================================
Bill says:
Thats real interesting Nate. But you said: Bill, this arrangement of masses with globes and frictionless bearings is completely non-standard. Not something you can look up in a book.
So did this come to you via the word of God?
=========================================
Nate says:
Pretty sad rebuttal, Bill.
Where did you get your result that clamping down the globes makes NO difference, word of God??
In my case it just came the human-discovered laws of physics, as I clearly explained.
=======================================
Pure and unadulterated BS Nate. We were talking about a calculation of a ‘moment of inertia’ between objects with loose and screwed down objects. if you even know what that is. You responded that it was something not recorded in any book.
Then you responded that you can get a big difference in the moment of inertia for loose and screwed down objects. Obviously if you can’t get it from a book you must have imagined it or gotten from some unnamed source who can’t get his garbage published!!!!
Yes I recognize you can get different moments of inertia for objects not screwed down. But all the objects on my calculations were screwed down with their force vectors dead center of mass.
So please quit the obfuscation and post something relevant and verifiable if you have something or simply just shove your head up your arse where it undoubtedly belongs.
better yet Nate. go learn some physics and when you do come back and provide us with some clear details of what you learned rather than just spewing your ignorance all over the page. Please? Pretty please?
“Yes I recognize you can get different moments of inertia for objects not screwed down.”
Very good, then your statements over the last day or so are now understood to be incorrect?
“From that exercise you will find the moment of inertia is the same for both mgrs. For this calculation it doesnt matter if the globes are spinning or not.”
“But all the objects on my calculations were screwed down with their force vectors dead center of mass.”
Hmm, ..
Do you mean screwed down with frictionless bearings?? Force vectors??
“You either have to attack the classic physics formula for moment of inertia I=mr2”
Other classic formulae.
So for a sphere spinning on its axis. Is = 2/5 MR^2. All of its kinetic energy is from SPIN at angular velocity w.
Ksp =1/2 Is w^2. And BTW it has spin angular momentum Ls = Is w
Now if a POINT MASS is fixed to a (massless) plate or rod and orbiting at a distance r, it has ORBITAL kinetic energy
Korb = 1/2 Mr^2w^2 and BTW orbital angular momentum Lorb = Mr^2 w.
Note: Mr^2 is just the moment of inertia of a POINT MASS at r.
But due to the parallel-axis-thm The TOTAL moment of inertia of a SPHERE fixed at r on a massless plate is
It = Mr^2 + Is
and its total kinetic energy is
K = 1/2 Mr^2 w^2 + 1/2 Is w^2.
IOW it has the SAME kinetic energy of a sphere spinning on its axis PLUS the orbital kinetic energy of a point mass orbiting.
K = Ks + Korb
And BTW its total angular momentum is the SAME as that of sphere spinning on its axis plus a point mass orbiting.
L = Ls + Lorb.
Now why do these relations make sense?
A sphere orbiting while keeping its orientation fixed to the plate IS SPINNING wrt the stars.
Thus an object spinning wrt the stars must have added SPIN energy and angular momentum.
If a sphere is orbiting while keeping its orientation fixed to the stars (inertial frame) has no SPIN energy or angular momentum. It only has ORBITAL energy and angular momentum.
The ORBITAL kinetic energy and angular momentum for a sphere is the SAME as that of a POINT MASS.
Why?
Whether it is a sphere or a point mass, if it is simply TRANSLATING at speed v without rotation then its
K = 1/2Mv^2.
For a mass orbiting, its center of mass has speed
v = wr. Then its kinetic enrgy is
K = 1/2 M v^2 = 1/2 M (wr)^2 = 1/2 (Mr^2) w^2.
This is just what we got for ORBITAL kinetic energy of a POINT MASS
IOW, whether sphere or point mass its kinetic energy ALL comes from the TRANSLATION of its center of mass. Same goes for angular momentum.
To summarize:
A sphere orbiting with orientation fixed to the stars will behave like a point mass orbiting.
A sphere orbiting with orientation fixed wrt to a plate will behave just like it is spinning on its axis while orbiting.
It has both ORBITAL and SPIN contributions to its energy and angular momentum.
Going back to the original question:
Spheres attached to a plate with frictionless bearings.
Their orientation wrt to the STARS must remain FIXED as the plate is turned (Newtons Laws and Svante exp).
Then from previous post:
‘A sphere orbiting with orientation fixed to the stars will behave like a point mass orbiting.’
Its I = Mr^2
‘A sphere orbiting with orientation fixed wrt to a plate will behave just like it is spinning on its axis while orbiting.’
Its I = Mr^2 + (2/5) M R^2
‘
Nate says:
‘A sphere orbiting with orientation fixed wrt to a plate will behave just like it is spinning on its axis while orbiting.’
Its I = Mr^2 + (2/5) M R^2
=====================================
Well at least thats a huge improvement. And I do appreciate the patience because I am an auditor and not physicist. Let me comment on your final formula.
Since we are talking about an mgr (‘Spheres attached to a plate with frictionless bearings’) with 20 spheres , at least 21 cylindrical axles, nuts to hold them on, and God only knows how many chalked circles and pieces of the platter that could related to an infinite number of chalked circles that you have imagined to be rotating on their own axes.
Its like claiming a basketball sitting in the middle of the gymnasium floor for 2 months because of the covid-19 crisis has rotated how many times? Definitely an occupation well suited for an air head.
At the beginning of your dissertation you say: ‘So for a sphere spinning on its axis.’ What that says to me is you are taking spin for granted as a premise meaning your argument is circular. So you are doing nothing but claiming what you believe to be true and not providing any proof of such. Science is about proof. Engineering is about building stuff in logical ways.
Finally, carefully considering the model and the fact that gravity is the only force at play here, it seems the most apropos paradigm is the rigid body model of figure 2(b) with point O being either the common barycenter or the effective axle/axis of the mgr.
Just you and bunch of other folks fully with their heads in the stars seem to want it to be different. Since in common usage there is many concepts of ‘standing still’ far more useful than a middle of a universe concept that we have no idea about and actually can do nothing about.
So you can have my opinion I can sum it up: https://youtu.be/Mz0r0Ih7Sn0
‘At the beginning of your dissertation you say: So for a sphere spinning on its axis. What that says to me is you are taking spin for granted as a premise meaning your argument is circular.’
Nope, not at all, that is just one of the facts that we need.
You asked for the physics behind the discussion. Read the whole thing, then make a serious rebuttal
Or not.
We have a new puppy. I can show him a ball but he doesnt always appreciate it, he gets distracted by the toilet paper.
Nate says:
‘At the beginning of your dissertation you say: So for a sphere spinning on its axis. What that says to me is you are taking spin for granted as a premise meaning your argument is circular.’
Nope, not at all, that is just one of the facts that we need.
You asked for the physics behind the discussion. Read the whole thing, then make a serious rebuttal
Or not.
We have a new puppy. I can show him a ball but he doesnt always appreciate it, he gets distracted by the toilet paper.
=================================
speak for yourself Nate. In case you haven’t noticed the debate is about whether the sphere is spinning on its own axis or not. You don’t get to treat that as a fact in an argument for it is.
Its really amazing to me that they don’t teach logic to science majors.
“Its really amazing to me that they don’t teach logic to science majors.”
Don’t be daft.
Good to know that when you ask for details, Bill, that you will lose interest after the first sentence…
“Finally, carefully considering the model and the fact that gravity is the only force at play here, it seems the most apropos paradigm is the rigid body model of figure 2(b) with point O being either the common barycenter or the effective axle/axis of the mgr.”
When I give you a detailed basic physics-based argument, you can’t comprehend it, dismiss it, and instead go with
“it seems”
That sums up your approach, Bill.
Nate, just because your daddy bought you a new bicycle doesn,t mean you should ride it across the street without first looking in both directions.
??
Nate says:
??
=========================================
thats the result of not having logic in your curriculum.
Bill,
You seem to have no good arguments left, and are just sputtering.
That’s how most people figure out theyre done, and move on.
Nate says:
That’s how most people figure out theyre done, and move on.
================================
sorry to see you go Nate.
Nate says:
Its really amazing to me that they don’t teach logic to science majors.
Dont be daft.
Good to know that when you ask for details, Bill, that you will lose interest after the first sentence
==================================
I didn’t lose interest. I just noted that you were making a fallacious argument for your point. Basic logic says if you want to prove something you can’t start out by assuming its truth as the main premise of the argument. You would have learned that if you had taken just one course in logic.
“Basic logic says if you want to prove something you cant start out by assuming its truth as the main premise of the argument.”
The first line was about the properties of globe spinning around its axis.
“So for a sphere spinning on its axis. Is = 2/5 MR^2. All of its kinetic energy is from SPIN at angular velocity w.”
A factual statement, needed for the rest of the discussion.
No assumption whatsoever.
Nope, your logic chip is faulty and needs to be replaced.
Nate says:
Basic logic says if you want to prove something you cant start out by assuming its truth as the main premise of the argument.
The first line was about the properties of globe spinning around its axis.
So for a sphere spinning on its axis. Is = 2/5 MR^2. All of its kinetic energy is from SPIN at angular velocity w.
A factual statement, needed for the rest of the discussion.
No assumption whatsoever.
Nope, your logic chip is faulty and needs to be replaced.
==================================
Sorry but its your logic that is faulty. Yes there are formulas for spin on a central axis.
But in the case of the two mgrs there is no spin on the axes for the globes spaced along the outer rim for either one.
Frictionless bearings don’t matter as there is no torque or friction on the individual globes to turn them.
Your specification of a rotation on these globes is premature and lacks a cause. To make your case you must show the force that gets them to rotate on their axes. . . .otherwise your answer will beg the question and be fallacious.
“Yes there are formulas for spin on a central axis.”
Good. Then there are no false assumptions in the premise, as you claimed.
Now not accepting generic dismissals.
Critique the steps in my post. Where specifically do you depart? And why.
Nate says:
May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM
Yes there are formulas for spin on a central axis.
Good. Then there are no false assumptions in the premise, as you claimed.
Now not accepting generic dismissals.
Critique the steps in my post. Where specifically do you depart? And why.
==============================
You will first need to produce and example of a spin on a central axis. We were talking about mgrs that the movement of those globes was for the whole globe to go ”around” a central axis rather than spin on one.
Bill,
“You will first need to produce and example of a spin on a central axis.”
A sphere spinning on an axis is what it is. A point mass orbiting is what it is. These are basic concepts.
Are you really that clueless?
If you cant point to specific issues, oh well…
No, Bindidon, there really are two groups:
1) who realize that a chalk circle drawn onto the edge of a merry-go-round cannot possibly be rotating on its own axis.
2) idiots.
The chalk circle drawn onto the edge of a merry-go-round CAN be rotating on its own axis if the merry-go-round is also rotating around another axis thru the center of the chalk circle. So chalk circle CAN be possibly rotating around its own axis.
So 1) is wrong. Anymore wrong ideas DREMT? Oh wait, DREMT has plenty wrong ideas already. Any right ideas, DREMT?
Give it a rest, Ball4.
Nah, shooting down DREMT, Bill, Gordon, and ClintR ideas with testable basic science is good sport in times of little Pro or no NCAA sports, never rests. This fun spectator sport is practiced well around here by other players too. No gate fee!
Any right ideas, DREMT?
The merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, only.
Sure, and I have shown a chalk circle drawn onto the edge of a merry-go-round CAN possibly be rotating on its own axis.
DREMT’s 1) is still wrong.
How could the MGR possibly be rotating on an axis through the center of the MGR and on an axis though the chalk circle!?
Folks that have astrophysics degrees would call that two axis rotation, folks that do not have such a degree have to ask those who are more knowledgeable in physics.
Regardless, the merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, only.
Yes Ball4 give it a rest.
Your example is possible but its just another deception from improperly drawing frames of reference. Plenty of deception already, doubling down on it is hilarious.
Your example is possible
Right bill, can possibly vs DREMTs wrong cannot possibly.
It cant possibly in the thought experiment as I outline it, where the MGR is rotating only about its center. End of discussion.
Clint r …”Sissy Norman appears to rant at everyone, not just me”.
You’ll have to excuse Norman and his buddy Bindidon. They get frustrated easily and resort to ad homs and insults in lieu of scientific arguments.
Gordon Robertson
I have to correct you there. My frustration with you is not over scientific arguments (which would be great if you offered any).
You offer Contrarian Religion. Based on lies, deception, and distortion. It is a cancer to the scientific effort.
It works by creating a superior feeling in the mind of a Contrarian (such as you). Some contrarian claims Einstein is wrong and the contrarian followers love this. They do not have to do any research, read any actual material, do any actual experiments and now they are smarter than thousands of scientists who studied hard in Universities and put out great effort.
It creates this false sense of superiority in the cult followers of a Contrarian leader. You have your leaders you follow.
If you produce a science debate with supporting evidence I will have no need to become “frustrated”. Frustration comes when I will support a claim with valid evidence and the contrarian rejects it without explanation, counter evidence or any research.
In the moon spinning debate I have linked to several animations showing the Moon both orbits and rotates once per orbit. They clearly show this is the case. The contrarian does not offer rational counter argument, just either ignore the evidence (like you do when I link you to several EM images of HIV) and offer nothing. It is easy to become frustrated with contrarians as they are not scientific, rarely logical or rational and are more apt to be spreading their cancerous belief trying to get recruits to the false thought process.
I will continue to oppose all your false and misleading Contrarian posts. They are not scientific and they need to be rejected. They are not even skepticism. Just opposition to build a false sense of superiority.
In the moon spinning debate I have linked to several animations showing the Moon both orbits and rotates once per orbit. They clearly show this is the case.
That’s called a “half-truth”, Norman. It’s is true that you linked to somethings, but it is not true that the links showed “the Moon both orbits and rotates”.
In fact, one of your links had a serious problem. The NASA guy got his definitions all confused. I explained that to you here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475347
That’s when I developed the “idiot test”. If someone believes that something that cannot possibly be rotating about its axis, is rotating about its axis, then that person is an idiot. If you expect a response, prove that you are not an idiot by admitting that something that cannot rotate about it axis, cannot rotate about its axis. It can “appear” to be rotating, but it cannot be actually rotating.
I know not to argue with idiots.
“something that cannot rotate about it axis, cannot rotate about its axis.”
ClintR, please point out any object that cannot rotate about its own axis for us. There is only one and even that one needs to be assumed.
If you expect a response, prove that you are not an idiot by admitting that something that cannot rotate about it axis, cannot rotate about its axis. It can “appear” to be rotating, but it cannot be actually rotating.
I know not to argue with idiots.
There is only one something that cannot rotate about its own axis, because it cannot rotate about its own axis. ClintR doesn’t seem to be able to point to at least one such something.
Perhaps ClintR is the idiot.
“It can “appear” to be rotating, but it cannot be actually rotating.”
ClintR writes just like the disappeared screenname lost his arm around here in an unfortunate airplane accident because he claimed the propeller can “appear” to be rotating, but it cannot be actually rotating.
Clint,
calling us idiots doesn’t help your case.
That’s the advantage of having an “idiot test”, bob. We let people decide for themselves. bdgwx has admitted he is proud to be an idiot.
You want to take a Dunning-Kruger test?
Here goes
Are you as smart as you think you are?
DK! Seriously? Whenever DK is used it almost always means the user knows he’s lost.
I’m not being smart if I argue with idiots. Therefore, don’t expect a response until you prove you’re not an idiot.
The University of Illinois does not give chemistry degrees to idiots.
I assume you don’t have a Chemistry Degree from UofI, so you might well indeed be an idiot.
You are claiming that someone who thinks the moon is rotating is an idiot.
You need to support that claim, so far, no good.
Oh, and by the way,
You are arguing with me, and you don’t argue with idiots, so that makes me not an idiot.
bobdroege says:
The University of Illinois does not give chemistry degrees to idiots.
=============================
I will agree thats true.
ClintR
You are a contrarian. Taking the Spock approach. No my links are not “half-truth” I gave more than one link. Each one clearly shows that the Moon is both orbiting and rotating at the same time. The rotation rate is equal to the orbital rate.
Your idiot test is truly idiotic. It has nothing at all to do with any links I provided and seems a contrarian tactic of diversion when you are not able to properly form a valid or intelligent argument to support your claim.
The Moon definitely does not fit your idiot test. It can freely rotate on its axis. And indeed it does.
ClintR, there are already enough contrarians on this blog. An additional one will not make the contrarian claims any more real or valid.
“Your idiot test is truly idiotic”
Why? There are people on here who think that a chalk circle drawn at the edge of a merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis. Even though that is physically impossible. So, a test to weed these people out of the discussion seems quite sensible.
Robertson
” They get frustrated easily and resort to ad homs and insults … ”
That, Robertson, is an incredible distortion of the reality: YOU are since years the one who insults the most on this blog.
Anybody could easily preform a review of all your comments, and count how many times you named me an idiot, blithering idiot, or stupid just because I wrote things you are either unable or unwilling to understand.
And yes: it then comes to a moment where the people you so often insult begin to insult you back, Robertson. That was valid for me too.
I wrote to you in previous years: ‘Stop insulting me, and I’ll stop insulting you back’.
But you all the time restarted naming me an idiot.
J.-P. D.
binny…”It is well known since the discovery of Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same face towards the earth”.
There are no forces on or from the Moon to turn it’s face. All the force applied to the Moon comes from the Earth. One can consider the Moon’s linear momentum as a pseudo-force since a force created the momentum and a force is required to stop it. Therefore an additional momentum would be required to turn the Moon as you have claimed.
No such angular momentum exists. If you look up any drawings of the Moon in orbit there are only two vectors, the vector representing the linear velocity of the Moon and a vector representing the acceleration due to gravity. Those two parameters alone account for the Moon’s orbit. No drawing ever shows an angular velocity unless the person is deranged.
Gordo, The Moon’s orbit is not dynamically connected or influenced by the rotation of the Moon, as is true other satellites. For that reason, there’s no need to include the satellite’s angular momentum on a crude drawing of the orbit. However, it’s known that the Moon is slowly gaining orbital energy, i.e., translational momentum, energy gained from the Earth’s rotation, a fact which may be included in detailed math models. As a consequence, the Earth’s rotation rate is slowing.
For a guy who now claims to be an engineer, you sure are ignorant. Did you get your “degree” from one of those pseudo colleges like Trump University?
According to Gordon, he never went to engineering college because there students of physics & engineering actually consult text books and do experiments. Gordon always writes both of those are an appeal to authority which Gordon avoids without exception.
That sure explains a lot about Gordon’s comments.
Try here, all will be revealed.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-around-the-earth
Yes, we know people think the moon rotates on its own axis.
It has been rotating on its axis since before there were people.
It may have rotated on its own axis at some point in the distant past.
Yeah, you know, like yesterday.
At moon rise today, you ought to check and observe if moon is still rotating on its own axis once per earth orbit by presenting the same hemisphere to earth.
Ball4 still does not get it.
They get it. They just don’t have the balls to admit it.
We get that you guys are so desperate to be ‘right’ that you make up the craziest most convoluted BS.
Yep, Nate doesn’t get it either.
A sure sign of it is when the response boils down to calling it out as ‘craziest most convoluted BS’ without a shred of a rational argument say whats inaccurate about it. bdgwx wanders around the edges searching for a gotcha and can’t find one. Despite all this failure and frustration they are still sure its wrong. Why? Inculcation is the answer. Big Dada told them its not so! Seriously they should require some philosophy in science majors, it would actually prevent Big Dada from manipulating them to spout out inanities while Big Dada puts his bets down on the political outcomes.
At least on this topic they haven’t found a way yet to blame it on Big Oil! LMAO! Oops I forgot Trump. Its Trump’s fault!
” a shred of a rational argument say whats inaccurate about it.”
Uhh, its not that your arguments are inaccurate.
Its that they are FICTIONAL.
-the cannonball rolling down the cannon.
-Instruments lack precision to detect rotation.
-gravity produces rigidity and torque.
-an axis of rotation without rotation.
Nate says:
-an axis of rotation without rotation.
================================
You mean like a chalked circle? LMAO!!
“-an axis of rotation without rotation.”
‘You mean like a chalk circle?’
No, I mean the Moon’s axis that you seem to realize MUST EXIST, but have been thoroughly unable/unwilling to DEFINE without including rotation of the Moon around it.
Thus you have run away as fast as you can while tossing out red herring grenades, to evade the question.
Obviously Nate you never took a drafting class.
You start out by plotting its orbit. Then you continue to observe and carefully document its orientation along that orbit down to mapping the moon and plotting some major features as reference point. Finding an axis on the moon is made more difficult than a moon rotating on its own axis by virtue of not seeing as many changes but once you get over it, its the exact same process of documenting it. FYI, the whole job was done without a view from space.
You start out by plotting its orbit around axis O (see ClintR clip) in Mahdavi Fig. 2 (b) “rotation”.
Then you continue to observe and carefully document its orientation along that orbit of axis thru O down to mapping the moon and plotting some major features such as references like the moon’s equator and observing the line of darkness sweeping across the surface called the terminator between night/day as the moon rotates on its own internal axis A.
Finding an axis of rotation A of the moon fixed to the moon is made easier by referring to Mahdavi Fig. 1 axis A “intersecting” the object. The moon equator is one of Mahdavi’s concentric circles. The axis A is determined by observing the equator plane. Then observe a feature on the equator showing the moon rotates once on its own internal axis A per orbit of O external axis.
FYI, the whole job was done without a view from space.
Catching on to those observations in the lab course will allow bill to pass the written tests of Mahdavi’s first course in rigid body dynamics.
“Then you continue to observe and carefully document its orientation along that orbit down to mapping the moon and plotting some major features as reference point. ”
You are talking about measuring its orientation. WRT what? The stars?
“Finding an axis on the moon is made more difficult than a moon rotating on its own axis by virtue of not seeing as many changes but once you get over it, its the exact same process of documenting it.”
Still beating around the bush and not DEFINING what an axis is.
If it’s such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
“Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.”
Again, and not sure why I need to keep repeating this.
This is not relevant to the Moon, which doesnt have a consistent view of one face. As you have seen in the videos.
Its view wobbles side to side, up and down, and it rotates CW and CCW.
All can be explained by the independent rotation of the Moon at a fixed speed, with axial tilt, the elliptical orbit, and the orbit tilt.
Not all these facts can be explained by your simplified model.
If you were acting like a real scientist, you would realize the necessity to reject your simplified model.
But you’re not, you’re cherry picking facts that work for your belief, and dismissing all others.
Nate says:
All can be explained by the independent rotation of the Moon at a fixed speed, with axial tilt, the elliptical orbit, and the orbit tilt.
===================================
Libration isn’t explained by a rotation of the moon Nate. Its explained by the eliptical orbit and the observer changing his angle of view. The moon is traveling at the same orbital rate of turn by traveling faster in the flatter curves of its orbit.
So you need to start over with a correct interpretation of why view changes slightly during an orbit and then realize that this has nothing to do with rotation on an axis. So lets keep it real and lets only talk about 360 degree rotations rather than picking around at irrelevant points.
Fact only is true the axial tilt of the moon is attributable to tidal friction.
Fig. 2
Obliquity (of moon’s axis) as a function of spin frequency for an object being DESPUN by tidal friction. (parens and all caps my emphasis)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/AJ…/0080//0000064.000.html
Your link is wrong, and so are your arguments.
“Libration isnt explained by a rotation of the moon Nate.”
declares Bill, the Minister of Propaganda.
Nate says:
Libration isnt explained by a rotation of the moon Nate.
declares Bill, the Minister of Propaganda.
====================================
You can’t even get that right. somebody has to hold your hand and guide you through the debate. The rotation of the moon on its own axis has nothing to do with the libration of the moon (and couldn’t even if it could because the moon isn’t rotating on its own axis)
The libration of the moon is caused by the eliptical shape of the moons orbit as it orbits at a constant angular velocity around the earth.
bill hunter says:
“it orbits at a constant angular velocity around the earth”.
You are wrong again. Johannes Kepler discovered that it sweeps out equal areas in equal amounts of time, i.e. greater angular velocity when it is closer. That was published in 1609.
Svante is too fast for me.
No, Bill, an elliptical-orbit angular-velocity is NOT FIXED.
The Moon’s rotational angular-velocity IS FIXED.
That is what leads to the side to side libration.
Contrary to the press-release from the Ministry of Propaganda.
Why should we should trust Bill’s declarations on the more complex facts, if he can’t even get the simplest facts right?
Anyone with common sense doesn’t.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
it orbits at a constant angular velocity around the earth.
You are wrong again. Johannes Kepler discovered that it sweeps out equal areas in equal amounts of time, i.e. greater angular velocity when it is closer. That was published in 1609.
=============================
You are correct. It orbits at a mean angular velocity around the earth that is a near constant but may be slowly changing due to forces of gravity.
What we have is a rigid system commanded by gravity. You guys are all over the place like a soup sandwich with Ball4=Gee guys its a rigid system but you misinterpret what a rigid system is.
Nate=Gee guys the moons axis is tilted you wouldn’t be able to define an axis without the moon rotating on its own axis. Svante, bending over, lifting his skirt, and mooning Nate. Bob bending over and lifting his skirt and mooning the institution he graduated from all the while suggesting it has a bigger whatever.
Meanwhile it seems all you guys missed the tidal torque. Gee, gravity exerts zero torque on a sphere right?
this matters because the alternative model would be a system of gears where axes are maintained and revolutions do occur to the face of the other gear. gears are in a synchronous rotation with the gears rotating in opposite directions exposing all faces to one another. So astronomy defines synchronous rotation in an extremely weird way. It’s completely arbitrary, physics has nothing to do with it beyond a declaratory role like naming torque. They could have just as easily called it quetor or havik.
“Meanwhile it seems all you guys missed the tidal torque.”
Nope.
‘tidally-locked’ has been mentioned 70 times here, mostly by ‘us guys’.
“Gee, gravity exerts zero torque on a sphere right?”
Yep, on small uniform ones like iron cannon balls.
We already noted that even when it operates on large, non-uniform spheres, it is tiny, and takes millions of years to have an effect.
“What we have is a rigid system commanded by gravity. ”
Just stop making up your own faux physics!
“The effect arises between two bodies when their gravitational interaction slows a body’s rotation until it becomes tidally locked. Over many millions of years, the interaction forces changes to their orbits and rotation rates as a result of energy exchange and heat dissipation. When one of the bodies reaches a state where there is no longer any net change in its ROTATION RATE over the course of a complete orbit, it is said to be tidally locked”
Notice the object still has a rotation rate.
And this is analogous to:
stirring a bowl of water with ice cubes in it. Eventually the ice cubes will orbit at the same speed as the water.
No one would claim the water has rigidity. What it has is friction (viscosity).
Nate says:
“Meanwhile it seems all you guys missed the tidal torque.”
Nope.
‘tidally-locked’ has been mentioned 70 times here, mostly by ‘us guys’.
“Gee, gravity exerts zero torque on a sphere right?”
Yep, on small uniform ones like iron cannon balls.
We already noted that even when it operates on large, non-uniform spheres, it is tiny, and takes millions of years to have an effect.
====================================
Appears now you are delving in lying.
Nate said: ”The force of gravity on the cannonnball is thru its center of mass and therefore cannot provide torque on the cannonball.
The resulting dp/dt of the cannonballs CM toward the planet causes the cannonball to travel on a circular path around the planet.
With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477757
I asked for a citation in that exchange, but all we got was hand-waving.
Tidal friction and generalized Cassini’s laws in the solar system – William Ward
Wachu talkin bout Bill?
My statements on the cannonball fully agree with each other! Check again.
Nate says: ”With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.”
No torque? Really?
Remains FIXED to the stars? Really?
Seems to me I pointed out to you that frictional torque which elongates an object and instantaneously begins to move an object into a reduction of rotation (despinning) away from a fixed orientation to the stars. . . .assuming of course it isn’t already tidal locked.
All I can say Nate is if you want to accept that well accepted science you will have to take that back. Claiming you were the one that brought it up in this thread is quite simply a proven lie.
Nate says: ‘With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.’
Bill says “No torque? Really?
Remains FIXED to the stars? Really?
Seems to me I pointed out to you that frictional torque which elongates an object and instantaneously begins to move an object into a reduction of rotation (despinning) away from a fixed orientation to the stars. . . .assuming of course it isn’t already tidal locked.”
Bill, first of all, there will be NO measurable torque on a spherical cannonball due to gravity.
Show us some evidence or even hints of it, that cannonballs experience tidal effects and torque in a gravity field. Show us numbers.
Of course, you won’t be able to because, as ever, that is made-up nonsense.
Tides occur on PLANETS.
Are you or your mother aware of tides occurring on cannonballs, beach balls, swimming pools, or any human sized objects?
Second, a tidal effect, you say it:
“elongates an object and instantaneously begins to move an object into a reduction of rotation (despinning) ”
No, it is not instantaneous even on a planet or the Moon. It takes millions of years.
It is irrelevant during a single orbit.
Do facts and evidence matter to you at all? It seems not.
Start here to seek out your tidal effects on cannonballs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
“The relationship of an astronomical body’s size, to its distance from another body, strongly influences the magnitude of tidal force.[5] The tidal force acting on an astronomical body, such as the Earth, is directly proportional to the diameter of that astronomical body and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from another body producing a gravitational attraction, such as the Moon or the Sun. Tidal action on bath tubs, swimming pools, lakes, and other small bodies of water is negligible”
” Claiming you were the one that brought it up in this thread is quite simply a proven lie.”
Let’s look at the anatomy of this slander by Bill:
Here’s what I said:
“‘tidally-locked’ has been mentioned 70 times here, mostly by ‘us guys.”
Here’s how Bill filtered it thru his reality distortion field:
I say ‘mentioned 70 times’.
Bill interprets that as ‘brought it up’
I say ‘mostly by us guys’, ie the SPINNERS here.
Bill interprets that as ‘YOU’ meaning me, just Nate.
My statement easily verified as TRUE.
But thru the Bill-filter it becomes
“quite simply a proven lie”
Nate says:
Nate says: With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.
Bill, first of all, there will be NO measurable torque on a spherical cannonball due to gravity.
======================================
No measurable effect? The effect of gravity on the moon is proven. The effect on a cannonball in terms of tidal height is very small but it is proportional to the comparative size (and in a more minor way composition) of the moon vs the cannonball.
And I have said Nate in terms of judging all this on friction alone I don’t believe that is sufficient to stop any spin resulting from the moon entering orbit around the earth in a single orbit.
However, gravity is a different animal than any other force. I provided a quote suggesting that gravity is just a manifestation of the curvature of space and time, if so taken to the extreme means gravity likely doesn’t necessarily follow the same rules as we have observed with objects we can actually experiment on in a controlled environment. We could look at it several ways and have no way of scientifically discerning what actually will happen when an object enters orbit because of excessive noise and the lack of precision of measurements. We can only EXTRAPOLATE what happens in environments subject to friction to fields of gravity. Problems will always exist at both ends of the spectrum big or small.
If we accepted your extrapolations why not just fire all the researchers studying the limits or our knowledge? We can just extrapolate and call or their work busy work.
Nate says:
Meanwhile it seems all you guys missed the tidal torque.
Nope.
tidally-locked has been mentioned 70 times here, mostly by us guys.
=======================================
Nope? You only mentioned tidally-locked as a negative response to an argument against the notion that gravity can exert no torque on sphere.
tidally-locked was just your way of phrasing it, it was more frequently phrased in other variations of the word ”tidal” which has been mentioned at least 237 times. So you are either lying or doing your usual obfuscation.
“No measurable effect? The effect of gravity on the moon is proven. The effect on a cannonball in terms of tidal height is very small but it is proportional to the comparative size (and in a more minor way composition) of the moon vs the cannonball.
And I have said Nate in terms of judging all this on friction alone I don’t believe that is sufficient to stop any spin resulting from the moon entering orbit around the earth in a single orbit.”
Again I asked for numbers, calculation, you offer only hand waving. So sorry, no numbers, no work, no credit.
Even if it is proportionally the same as that on the Moon, the tidal TORQUE on the Moon is PROVEN to be so miniscule that it takes millions of years to change the Moon’s angular velocity to match the orbital speed.
Therefore its effect on a cannonball will be negligible in a 90 minute orbit.
“However, gravity is a different animal than any other force. I provided a quote suggesting that gravity is just a manifestation of the curvature of space and time,”
More obfuscation, and red herrings…
The point is, all you seem to have here is at best, speculation.
Whereas the standard physics model fully explains the Moon’s orbit with its many parameters.
Your model cannot.
Yada yada red herrings…more obfuscation to evade reality.
“Nope? You only mentioned tidally-locked as a negative response to an argument against the notion that gravity can exert no torque on sphere.”
You got caught red-handed lying and slandering me, twisting my words to say something I didnt say, and claiming I lied.
Now you are doubling down on that obvious fraud instead of owning up to it.
Bill shows that when he’s losing this badly on the facts, his true asshole-troll tendencies come out.
No you are a liar. You obfuscate which is the same as obscure confuse, blur, muddle, jumble, complicate, garble, muddy, cloud, befog, muddy the waters.
The purpose of lying is to deceive same thing.
”Thus you have run away as fast as you can while tossing out red herring grenades, to evade the question.”
yada yada, red herring, running away, obfuscating discernment, rotating chalk circles, cannonball tidal friction too small despite angular momentum and the inverse square law of gravity are self cancelling in total effect (e.g. a cannonball will behave almost exactly like the moon if its in the same orbit)
You said this here: ”There is no torque applied by Earths gravity on a spherical cannonball.
As Im sure you all know, Newtons Law for rotation says that
with no torque the angular velocity of an object cannot change.”
thats just your real ignorance of science showing through Nate no amount of lying denials on your part or handwaving is going to make it go away.
“You said this here: ‘There is no torque applied by Earths gravity on a spherical cannonball.’
As Im sure you all know, Newtons Law for rotation says that
with no torque the angular velocity of an object cannot change.”
“thats just your real ignorance of science showing through Nate no amount of lying denials on your part or handwaving is going to make it go away.”
Alright I’ll put it this way, to be more accurate.
There is no torque due to Earths gravity field on a uniform spherical cannonball in orbit.
“Tidal action on bath tubs, swimming pools, lakes, and other small bodies of water is negligible.[6]” From Wiki
The tidal effect deforming IRON will be orders of magnitude less than the same deforming effect on WATER.
Therefore the tidal effect deformation of an iron cannonball will be NEGLIGIBLE.
As a result there will be NEGLIGIBLE torque due to gravity and tidal forces on a cannonball.
NEGLIGIBLE means it will have no measurable effect beyond measurement errors.
Anyone who has contradictory evidence that are more than just SPECULATION, can show us.
Nate says: ”There is no torque due to Earths gravity field on a uniform spherical cannonball in orbit.
“Tidal action on bath tubs, swimming pools, lakes, and other small bodies of water is negligible.[6]” From Wiki
The tidal effect deforming IRON will be orders of magnitude less than the same deforming effect on WATER.
Therefore the tidal effect deformation of an iron cannonball will be NEGLIGIBLE.”
==========================================
You are just flaunting your ignorance. We aren’t talking here about the size of the bulge Nate we are talking about the resistance per unit measure of the bulge. Thats the friction.
thus an iron ball might bulge less than the moon which is mostly a combination of chemicals like iron, aluminum, silicone etc. so its going to have a different resistance but that will be manifested by additional height of the bulge.
Uniform sphere has nothing to do with it. Imperfect shapes are in the field of gravity gradients which with uniform or nearly uniform spheres has little or no torque associated with despinning a rotation on the lunar axis though it will be a factor in final determination of an unmoving bulge.
Your ignorance here runs deep Nate. The cannonball being many times smaller than the moon is also many times smaller in radius thus its moment of inertia is many times smaller but its mass as you like to point out is much greater per unit volume, its friction against expanding is much greater per millimeter of expansion. Without calculations its not possible to say if the effect on its angular momentum would be more or less. Lets just say it would be more for the fun of it. Prove me wrong!
“Without calculations its not possible to say if the effect on its angular momentum would be more or less.”
Good.
Then your oft expressed CERTAINTY about its effects, is shall we say, unjustified.
Can we agree that the tidal effect on the Moon is very very small, since it requires MILLIONS of years to alter the Moon’s angular velocity?
Here is a rough tidal force calculation for a cannonball in Earth orbit.
Suppose a cannonball has 10 cm radius,R, and mass, M = 4/3piR^3 x density. Density is 8 g/cm^3, So
M = 33,500 g = 33.5 kg.
The top and bottom halves are each 16.7 Kg.
g = GM/r^2. the orbit is @ 100 km. That is a radius of 6480 km. So g = 9.7 m/s^2.
The top half of the cannoball is say 10 cm higher in orbit than the bottom half.
As a fraction of r this is a very tiny change of .1m/6,480,000m. = 1.55 e-8.
The force of gravity on the top half will be less than on the bottom half by 2 x this fraction or 3.2e-8.
3.1e-8 x 16.7 Kg = 5e-7 Kg = 5 e-4 g = 0.5 mg
The difference in FORCE between top and bottom will be the weight of 0.5 milligrams.
Is that enough to deform an iron ball measurably? Certainly not.
Shall we calculate that?
FYI that tidal force on the cannonball is ~ the weight of a grain of sugar.
https://www.bluebulbprojects.com/measureofthings/results.php?comp=weight&unit=gms&amt=0.0044&sort=pr&p=1#:~:text=The%20mass%20of%20a%20grain%20of%20salt%20is%20approximately%200.00005850%20grams.
Nate you aren’t done yet. You must also calculate the force on the moon, then compare that to their respective angular momentums and see which is comparatively larger in order to determine the cannonball will despin faster or slower than the moon.
Further NASA has conducted a couple of experiments on spherical satellites in an attempt to achieve stabilization of the craft without the use of powered up gyroscopes or thrusters for fuel economy.
the strategy was to deploy a second bird via a tether to hold the spherical satellite in a vertical position as oblong objects tend to stabilize in a vertical position. But with satellite operating in thin atmosphere the issues become greater to contend with.
The first mission failed when the tether bird failed to deploy. The second mission essentially failed when the tether broke with 19.7km of tether deployed with 65N (14.6lbs) tension on the cable.
Nate says:
June 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM
FYI that tidal force on the cannonball is ~ the weight of a grain of sugar.
https://www.bluebulbprojects.com/measureofthings/results.php?comp=weight&unit=gms&amt=0.0044&sort=pr&p=1#:~:text=The%20mass%20of%20a%20grain%20of%20salt%20is%20approximately%200.00005850%20grams.
=============================================
Hmmm. .5mg is the force and you refer me for the weight of a grain of salt as a surrogate for grain of sugar and the math is off by almost an order of magnitude.
Maybe I ought to check the rest of your calculations.
Nate says:
BH Without calculations its not possible to say if the effect on its angular momentum would be more or less.
Good.
Then your oft expressed CERTAINTY about its effects, is shall we say, unjustified.
Can we agree that the tidal effect on the Moon is very very small, since it requires MILLIONS of years to alter the Moons angular velocity?
=====================================
Thats so ignorant its ridiculous! The forces of gravity instantaneously start messing with the moon’s angular momentum, instantaneously. There is no remaining FIXED to the stars ever thats like now to forever.
It might take some time to measure the change but the change starts instantaneously and ”FIXED to the stars” is about the same concept as a flat earth.
So if you want to win the Presidency of the Flat Earth Society you certainly well on your way!!
And uncertainty about the cannonball? There are huge uncertainties about it but one of them isn’t whether or not earths gravity is going to instantaneously throw it out of alignment with the stars thats a given it will! The only question is whether it would do it faster for the moon or the cannonball. Real cannonballs aren’t perfect spheres. Real cannonballs have imperfections including voids in their castings. Like real moons things are not distributed in a sphere evenly. You come in here with ”textbook” cannonballs and extrapolate away about them but the one thing you missed even with the perfect cannonball is that tiny bit of stretch which has some kind of mathematical relationship between its diameter and mass to affect angular momentum. How long would it take to despin that? Sort of depends upon how much angular momentum it possesses when finding itself on an orbit entry trajectory.
“oblong objects tend to stabilize”
well known. And??
“Thats so ignorant its ridiculous! The forces of gravity instantaneously start messing with the moons angular momentum, instantaneously. There is no remaining FIXED to the stars ever thats like now to forever.”
What part of Millions of Years for the Moon to Tidal Lock did you plug your ears for?
Declaring is taken to a new level.
It is the rotational axis that is Fixed to the stars, aside from Precession.
“he difference in FORCE between top and bottom will be the weight of 0.5 milligrams.
Is that enough to deform an iron ball measurably? Certainly not.
Shall we calculate that?”
Why not.
The stress on the cannonball is S = Force/Cross Sectional Area.
Diameter is 20 cm, Area = 300 cm^2 = .03 m^2 S = Mg/A = 5 e-7 Kg(9.7)/.03 m^2 = 2e-5N/m^2
Strain = S/E Youngs Modulus E = 2e11 N/m^2 for Iron.
Strain = 2e-5/2e11 = 1e-16
Strain is fractional stretching of D = 0.2 m cannonball. It stretches by
delta D = 0.2 m (1e-16) = 2 e-17 m.
A proton diameter is ~ 1.7 e-15 m.
The cannonball stretches by ~ 1/10 of the diameter of a proton.
Is that a lot? Not really.
Nate says:
Declaring is taken to a new level.
It is the rotational axis that is Fixed to the stars, aside from Precession.
===================================
Good you are making progress. The ball on a string also has an axis fixed to the stars.
“You come in here with ‘textbook’ cannonballs and extrapolate away about them but the one thing you missed even with the perfec”
Yes weve been talking about textbook cannonballs. The one Newton put in his book, the first physics textbook.
This is a classic Denier move. Well, there are no true Black Bodies, so we cant even discuss them! DREMT and Clint are experts at it.
You have been all about gravity and its ‘fundamental’ rigidity. That means orbits always are like rigid body rottion.
That didnt fly, so now it is all about divits in the cannoball.
“Good you are making progress. The ball on a string also has an axis fixed to the stars.”
Precisely. The orbital axis.
The Moon has a second axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees to that one.
I have asked you what is this second axis? What defines it?
For Astrophysicists and me, this is easy. It is the Moon’s rotational axis.
To avoid this conclusion requires you to evade the issue, dismiss it as unimportant, or to come up with some horribly complicated and unworkable alternative to explain it.
I see no good reason to do any of those, when the simple and obvious answer is right in front of your nose.
Nate says:
Precisely. The orbital axis.
The Moon has a second axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees to that one.
I have asked you what is this second axis? What defines it?
For Astrophysicists and me, this is easy. It is the Moon’s rotational axis.
To avoid this conclusion requires you to evade the issue, dismiss it as unimportant, or to come up with some horribly complicated and unworkable alternative to explain it.
I see no good reason to do any of those, when the simple and obvious answer is right in front of your nose.
===========================================
There is no second axis Nate. You are just assuming that the orbital axis is required to be perpendicular to the orbit. Since the rotational axis of the moon is in the COG of earth so is the orbital axis and the orbital axis is identical with the rotational axis if you artificially want to separate the two.
You just take it a step further and put it in the COG of the moon which is parallel with the rotational axis of the moon that goes through the COG of earth.
It is a complex system with the two great attractors the earth and sun having different strings attached to the moon as it follows a tilted path. We can see the irregularities of that pull in the earth’s tides with tides peaking twice a month with different timings and minor and major peak periods. Resulting a great deal of variance separately in both the height of tides and time of day. But the illogic of the moon to rotate on its own axis while holding essentially same face towards the earth holds true through it all with the only way of accomplishing that is to have the earth orbiting the moon.
“There is no second axis Nate. You are just assuming that the orbital axis is required to be perpendicular to the orbit.”
Bill, this makes absolutely no sense. The orbital axis IS required to be perpendicular to the orbital plane! You cant just make up your own definitions.
The Earth-Moon orbital axis tilt to the Sun-Earth orbital axis is found in all listings.
The Axial-Tilt of the Moon’s rotational axis to the Earth-Moon orbital axis is found in all lists.
These are two different parameters. There MUST be two different axes.
FYI, wiki Axial Tilt,
“In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.[1] It differs from orbital inclination.
At an obliquity of 0 degrees, the two axes point in the same direction; i.e., the rotational axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane.”
Nate says:
Bill, this makes absolutely no sense. The orbital axis IS required to be perpendicular to the orbital plane! You cant just make up your own definitions.
The Earth-Moon orbital axis tilt to the Sun-Earth orbital axis is found in all listings.
The Axial-Tilt of the Moon’s rotational axis to the Earth-Moon orbital axis is found in all lists.
These are two different parameters. There MUST be two different axes.
======================================
Thats pretty ignorant of astronomy there Nate. The tilt is measured by the equatorial plane to the orbital plane.
Orbital planes are 2 dimensional and indifferent to the volume of the object circling the orbital center. Do I need to define what a ‘plane’ is for you too?
The rotational center of the orbital plane is a point not a line. That point is commonly called a barycenter but at any instantaneous moment it is the COG of the object at the center of the orbit. This is basic geocentrism vs heliocentrism and your definition of the center of the orbit is a geocentrist point of view. . . .discredited.
On that center point indeed there is a line that is the axis of the object rotating around it. But its not an axis for the orbit as that is simply a point.
The only axis around which lunar rotation is actually occurring in accordance with Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b) is the external axis for the moon defined by its orbital plane and the tilt of the moon.
I gave you a scientific reference to how the tilt of the moon was forced by the same gravitational frictions that despun the moon of its independent rotation around its own axis. That source states that axis pointed in a different direction Nate. It no longer exists because the moon has been despun.
this is so simple yet you guys are such sycophants to form and authority over substance you can’t see it and are just making stuff up to bolster your case.
This concept in astronomy of yours is no doubt a left over from pre-Newton days that has never been changed as everything in space is relative and thus this issue has no effects on measurements or navigation. But where it does have a problem is in logic and consistency with engineering dynamics.
wiki really? Did you write the entry Nate?
“Thats pretty ignorant of astronomy there Nate.”
That pretty much sums up your argument, Bill.
Can we agree that making up your own facts and definitions is not an acceptable way to debate? If you have to do that then you’re argument is simply a joke.
Find alternative definitions from a reputable source of your liking.
“On that center point indeed there is a line that is the axis of the object rotating around it. But its not an axis for the orbit as that is simply a point.”
Uuuhhh…???
A plane is a 2 dimensional concept, why give it a 3rd dimension when a point does the job just fine? Oh thats right you want to design it artificially to support your argument!!!
Oh the gyrations folks go through to support something totally non-intuitive. They can imagine anything they want!!!
Bill,
“A plane is a 2 dimensional concept, why give it a 3rd dimension when a point does the job just fine?”
OMG. Youre flailing.
From the definition I gave you it states ” the rotational axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane”
You can deal with axes or planes and points, doesnt matter, same result.
“axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.[1] It differs from orbital inclination.”
I suggested “Find alternative definitions from a reputable source of your liking.”
You offer none.
As I said, if you cant live in the world of facts and standard definitions, your argument has become a joke.
You’re done debating and only trolling.
Go home.
Nate says:
bh-A plane is a 2 dimensional concept, why give it a 3rd dimension when a point does the job just fine?
OMG. Youre flailing.
From the definition I gave you it states the rotational axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane
=================================
LOL! You take wikipedia and ignore that the only statement with a reference says its “the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane”
===================
===================
Nate says: You can deal with axes or planes and points, doesnt matter, same result.
axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.[1] It differs from orbital inclination.
I suggested Find alternative definitions from a reputable source of your liking.
You offer none.
==============================
I offered your own freaking source with a freaking reference which yours lacked. You are rapidly descending into moron territory.
=====================
==================
Nate says:
As I said, if you cant live in the world of facts and standard definitions, your argument has become a joke.
Youre done debating and only trolling.
Go home.
==============================
What and give up an easy opportunity to make you look like a fool? Not a chance!!
An axis makes sense for a sphere because it rotates with volume. A plane rotates with no volume so you can draw an axis to serve any purpose you want. You drew one to argue that somehow an orbital path is related to axial tilt by anything more than a measurement, a measurement that is easily provided by equatorial plane and orbital plane. Piece of cake to take the necessary perpendicular axis through a 3d object and project it opposed to a perpendiular axis through an orbit as an alternative way to measure obliquity but heck we learn that in junior high school geometry.
Orbit planes seem obviously related to the direction of travel before entering an orbit. Completely unrelated to gravity exerted by the orbited object or by existing spin. Yet you want this non-related concept to be the proof of what you claim. ROTFLMAO!!! If you believe that I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.
Bill,
This was your statement
“There is no second axis Nate. You are just assuming that the orbital axis is required to be perpendicular to the orbit.”
The definitions I showed and basic geometry show that this is patently FALSE and still makes absolutely no sense.
Up to now, everyone was discussing the rotation around AXES.
Not working out for you, so now you want to switch to PLANES?
This is pure OBFUSCATION.
Lets face it if your argument requires
‘Thats pretty ignorant of astronomy’,
then you are pretty much admitting that you cant win on the facts.
Unless you have some real facts, ur all done. Go home.
Nate says:
Bill,
This was your statement
“There is no second axis Nate. You are just assuming that the orbital axis is required to be perpendicular to the orbit.”
The definitions I showed and basic geometry show that this is patently FALSE and still makes absolutely no sense.
Up to now, everyone was discussing the rotation around AXES.
Not working out for you, so now you want to switch to PLANES?
This is pure OBFUSCATION.
Lets face it if your argument requires
‘Thats pretty ignorant of astronomy’,
then you are pretty much admitting that you cant win on the facts.
Unless you have some real facts, ur all done. Go home.
=================================
OK so you want your argument smashed to smithereens. Fine here I will serve it up.
”Three non-collinear points in space suffice to determine an orbital plane. A common example would be the positions of the centers of a massive body (host) and of an orbiting celestial body at two different times/points of its orbit.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_plane_(astronomy)
There you go a completely defined orbital plane. No need for an axis. Ball is now in your court to prove the need of an axis.
“There you go a completely defined orbital plane. No need for an axis”
Oh ok, now there is no axis. Then why did you guys claim for a month that the rotation was around an axis thru the Earth?
Throw out out BS, none of it sticks, try some new BS.
Of course there is an orbital plane, dimwit.
And there is an orbital axis.
The axis, as my definition noted is “perpendicular to the orbital plane” and thru the barycenter.
This red herring obfuscation is leading nowhere.
Heres Bill a few days ago, having no problem with an orbital axis:
“The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually rotates on the orbital axis.”
And many more like it.
So just stop with the obfuscation, or else argue it out with yourself.
Nate says:
Oh ok, now there is no axis. Then why did you guys claim for a month that the rotation was around an axis thru the Earth?
Throw out out BS, none of it sticks, try some new BS.
Of course there is an orbital plane, dimwit.(obviously anybody who thinks so must be a dimwit to Nate, LMAO)
And there is an orbital axis.
The axis, as my definition noted is “perpendicular to the orbital plane” and thru the barycenter.
This red herring obfuscation is leading nowhere.
Heres Bill a few days ago, having no problem with an orbital axis:
“The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually rotates on the orbital axis.”
And many more like it.
So just stop with the obfuscation, or else argue it out with yourself.
==========================================
Obviously Nate when you have an orbital plane and only a point orbiting on the plane you still don’t have an axis. Hopefully this doesn’t confuse you too much. But an axis is defined by particles flying around it. An orbital plane has one particle a point with no dimension thus it can’t be a line that has an angle until you have a stack of particles flying around it.
You have to keep in mind an axis is a symbolic reference point not a real thing. its defined by the particles that go around it. You just want to shoot a perpendicular line out of the orbit plane and call that an axis. Its not.
Sure. Either plane and a point or axis and barycenter, no difference.
But, you and I have described the orbit in terms of an orbital axis. Nothing ilegal about that.
In addition to the orbital axis, there is a second axis, that has an axial tilt wrt to the orbital axis. It is a rotational axis.
Your model needs to explain that.
“its defined by the particles that go around it. You just want to shoot a perpendicular”
I think we agree there. An axis is defined by the rotation of mass around it. It certainly is for the Earth.
The second axis for the Moon is also defined that way.
Nate says:
June 12, 2020 at 4:39 PM
its defined by the particles that go around it. You just want to shoot a perpendicular
I think we agree there. An axis is defined by the rotation of mass around it. It certainly is for the Earth.
The second axis for the Moon is also defined that way.
============================================
good so all you need to do is keep this test in mind from Madhavi for a rotation with a fixed axis inside the object.
”If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration”
Then what you have to do is first establish a circular orbit and map the movement of a few particles of the orbiting object including the COG of that objectt around the COG of the orbited object.
As these individually mapped particles rotate around the COG of the orbited object you will see they form concentric circles round the COG of that object, establishing the COG of that object as the rotational axis.
And as you move those particles around the orbiting object turns with all the particles including the particles that make up the orbiting COG moving along the path of the orbit.
Thus you cannot add or subtract a rotation on the axis of the orbiting object without exposing other sides of the moon to a view from the COG of the orbited object.
Fact is the concept of synchronous rotation is simply an attempt to divide up something that can’t be divided up in attempt to shift the rotational axis to the center of the orbiting object. That can only be done in an orbital system by the orbiting object changing places with the orbited object.
“As these individually mapped particles rotate around the COG of the orbited object you will see they form concentric circles round the COG of that object, establishing the COG of that object as the rotational axis.”
Thats all great for a rigid body rotating round its COG.
But that is clearly not the situation we have with the Moon. It is an independent body rotating around the Earth.
Its particles are not moving in circles around the barycenter.
a. THE Moons COG is moving on an elliptical path, with one axis thru the barycenter and perpendicular to the orbital plain.
b. They particles of the Moon have additional motions that give rise to Libration, that rigid bodies dont have.
c. These additional motions can be most easily explained as the particles of the Moon all moving in concentric circles around a second, tilted axis of rotation through the Moon’s COG.
Nate says:
“As these individually mapped particles rotate around the COG of the orbited object you will see they form concentric circles round the COG of that object, establishing the COG of that object as the rotational axis.”
Thats all great for a rigid body rotating round its COG.
==============================
Good we are making some progress.
======
========
Nate says:
But that is clearly not the situation we have with the Moon. It is an independent body rotating around the Earth.
Its particles are not moving in circles around the barycenter.
=================
Hmmm how does the moon get around the barycenter without its particles Nate?
If you are talking about the circles being ellipses it still doesn’t make any sense as the moon and its particles are still going around the earthCOG/barycenter in the same manner but in the shape of an ellipse rather than a circle. Thus that distinction doesn’t change anything of substance.
=================
================
Nate says:
a. THE Moons COG is moving on an elliptical path, with one axis thru the barycenter and perpendicular to the orbital plain.
================
thats not true. An axis must be a point where each individual particle goes around in its own orbital plane, thus the axis must be tilted in order to accommodate that for all the particles in the moon. Keep in mind the axis isn’t a real thing it is defined as the orbital plane of each and every particle with the axis penetrating the earths cog/common barycenter at the proper angle for each particle. No definition exists for a perpendicular axis unless there is zero obliquity. Thus the orbital axis is that angle of obliquity. Pretty basic trigonometry.
==================
=================
Nate says:
b. They particles of the Moon have additional motions that give rise to Libration, that rigid bodies dont have.
=======================
well thats way overstated the moon is a rigid object subject to forces and elliptica perspectives that both cause it to move immeasurably slightly and be perceived at angles not available if the orbit were circular.
But don’t make too much of rigid bodies. They vibrate, they twist, they bend, the deflect and sometimes they even break. If you find any materials that don’t do that I will buy them from you immediately if they pass my tests for not doing that.
=======================
=======================
Nate says:
c. These additional motions can be most easily explained as the particles of the Moon all moving in concentric circles around a second, tilted axis of rotation through the Moon’s COG.
===================
Easily explained by a moron who doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about perhaps. But you need to build this thing you speak of and see if it works. I guarantee it won’t. If you have any kind of analytical abilities you should be able to prove it to yourself with a compass, pencil, ruler, and piece of paper. You definitely need to try it that way rather than visuallizing it in your mind because in your head M.C. Escher is playing mind tricks on you.
“Easily explained by a moron who doesnt have a clue what he is talking about perhaps.”
Then Astronomy must be a collection of morons.
That’s where you have descended to, in order to defend an indefensible argument.
Go troll your mom.
I don’t see any astronomers in here defending a convention of astronomy as a fact. Do they even care? Perhaps some evidence of why they might even care could shed some light upon how this convention arose in astronomy. In the meantime don’t go trying to appeal to authority without actually bring that authority’s reasons for the convention.
You are just simply inculcated and can’t mount a defense of the convention so you as usual turn to an appeal to authority without even asking why that authority uses it as a convention.
On the other side of the equation DREMT brought in an authoritative engineering document explaining in the form of a entire college course on the matter why more explicit definitions are needed. I never even thought about this before reading the various arguments presented here. The difference between the two is pretty darned glaring and the minor little perturbations you want to offer as evidence is nothing more than what one sees in real world rigid bodies that arises out the bending moments of those kinds of designs that require engineering skill to provide sufficient cross sections of materials not fail under other forces to be more or less randomly applied to any such construction. The moons tidal lock hasn’t failed even once in the entire recorded history of mankind.
“They get it. They just don’t have the balls to admit it”
I’m really not so sure that they do!
You have a lot more experience here than I. so i am coming around to that.
Yes Svante, Bill has joined the cult.
So says the geocentrist cultist.
You will also come to notice bill that the ones who do have more understanding of our position do nothing to help the ones that are miles away. In fact they actively try to reinforce their misunderstanding.
Cult-speak.
Just stop.
Indeed DREMT these obfuscators will do everything possible to get their followers to drink the koolaid. Including lying about their role here.
This issue does shine a spotlight on that where they defend every word in what they considered to be blessed science papers as if every word was truth. . . .like a doctrine of papal infallibility. While those peer reviewed papers they disagree with emerge from journals of the devil. Here they put Nicola Tesla into that latter category and deny he has a legitimate argument.
There is no question of the existence of evidence its intentional as they fill gaps in their own narrative that they were selling like “Fixed to the Stars” and “gravity exerts no torque on sphere” extracted not from nature but from the artificial foundations of science which they then use to EXTRAPOLATE to the foundations of nature.
Are they fully conscious of that error? I don’t know. Its a very common malady in academic science where real world experience is lacking. My first major was in a highly structured theoretical science and as I neared graduation I went to the head of the department and asked what kind of job can I get with a degree in this major. The response was along the lines of librarian or teacher. Indeed the Pope has a lot of librarians and is in need of a lot of teachers. My response? I changed majors.
“his issue does shine a spotlight on that where they defend every word in what they considered to be blessed science papers as if every word was truth.”
We defend correct well established physics, which you don’t comprehend.
You think correct physics/science that you are ignorant of, can just be dismissed, and replaced with made-up, never tested, feelings-base ideas.
Wrong and dumb.
Nate says:
June 8, 2020 at 3:43 PM
his issue does shine a spotlight on that where they defend every word in what they considered to be blessed science papers as if every word was truth.
We defend correct well established physics, which you dont comprehend.
You think correct physics/science that you are ignorant of, can just be dismissed, and replaced with made-up, never tested, feelings-base ideas.
Wrong and dumb.
=============================================
And you parade around and can’t even give a solution to the riddle:
”Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the only way is for YOU to revolve around the object in time with its rotation rate.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth revolves around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.”
You simply ignore it like any fool without a clue.
You invest in an inertial reference frame of the stars because of a belief system of great rotations in space and thus if you obtain this level of zero perceived rotation you have via the reference frame ”least number of rotations”, at least from the standpoint of being able to count them.
So if its not rotating from starview it must be the least number of rotations. Not bad logic except that to achieve that you have been required to introduce a rotation in the opposite direction.
But hey thats OK with you because your math adds it up to zero!!!
You ignore the math and have an artifice that appears to have no rotation, but you actually added a spin to achieve the perspective you wanted.
but in your world while you gin up energies to introduce additional spins to maintain your frame of reference viewpoint of no spin, you are simply making a fool of yourself.
Mathematics and Reductionism in the absence of logic is a sad thing to watch. The bottom line Nate is your frame of reference completely sucks eggs and you are left with an absurdity: ”Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the only way is for YOU to revolve around the object in time with its rotation rate.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth revolves around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.”
binny…”5. But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place”.
A lot of scientists are convinced the entire mass of the current universe was created instantly out of nothing. A lot of scientists are convinced that time is a 4th dimension even though not one of them has proved it exists never mind forming a dimension. According to Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, Einstein did not understand measurements like time. E.thought time was real and not defined based upon the rotation of the planet, so he redefined time and length.
Even Planck knew time has no existence. In his book on heat, he pointed out that we humans invented time, density, temperature, etc., based on physical properties of the Earth. Temperature, for example, is based on the freezing and boiling points of water, and density on the mass/volume of water near the freezing point.
You should get in touch with this guy:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/pnt/PNT18/presentation_files/I08-VanBaak-GPS_Flying_Clocks_and_Relativity.pdf
“clocks (and we) came back 22 ns older”
Svante
I told Robertson about one year ago about Tom van Baak and his trip up to Mount Rainier, with his children and the atomic clocks.
Robertson’s reaction was as ignorant and arrogant as usual.
The best here is that van Baak is a great fan not only of Einstein and time dilation, but also of Louis Essen…
J.-P. D.
By accident, I found back an interesting document on a backup medium:
Origin of the Moon: Dynamical Considerations
Gordon F. MacDonald (1966)
44 pages, of course too much for some ‘engineer’s who so often stop reading papers even before the introduction section begins.
J.-P. D.
I thought you were going to stop discussing the moon?
Pseudomod
Making a decision happens in a moment on the time axis; to execute it may happen within an interval whose length depends on many factors.
Why is it necessary to explain that to you?
J.-P. D.
You’re funny.
Pseudomod
Why don’t you start doing something, instead of asking me why I don’t stop doing something?
Why don’t you read the 60 year old paper I mentioned above (of course by skipping all that boring math we all don’t understand enough of)?
The stuff in the paper is so interesting.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966ems..conf..165M
Click on the page, and then on ‘Send PDF’ below ‘Printing Options’.
Please don’t read it ‘from the monitor’, it’s too hard to grasp 44 pages that way; rather print it on paper, 10 pages at a time.
I like scientists who know what means ‘humility’ when publishing their results.
J.-P. D.
Duh!
https://tinyurl.com/yclbtxcb
OK, Bindidon. Whatever you say.
Whatever you think to be useful would be better.
OK, Bindidon.
How about an experiment?
1) Put a bowl near the edge of a big plate.
2) Fill the bowl with water.
3) Let a measuring cup with a handle float in the water.
4) Weigh the cup down with coins so it floats evenly.
5) Make sure they touch nothing and rotate the plate.
The water constitutes a reasonably good bearing.
Will the handles tend to point in the same direction if you rotate the plate?
Version 0.2:
1) Put a bowl near the edge of a big plate.
2) Fill the bowl with water.
3) Let a smaller ceramic bowl float in the water.
5) Rotate the plate quickly (90 degrees).
The water constitutes a reasonably good bearing.
Will the floating bowl tend to point in the same direction?
I don’t know, but in my experiment with the globe and fidget spinner, they did not keep pointing in the same direction. However, even if the spinnable globes on the merry-go-round were to remain oriented in the same direction as the MGR rotates, it doesn’t change the fact that the globes on the other MGR (which are welded so they are unable to rotate on their axes) are not rotating on their axes as the MGR rotates. Because it is physically impossible (they are welded).
I’m glad we have settled the MGR question.
It’s not exactly difficult. If it is not physically possible for something to rotate on its own axis, then its not rotating on its own axis. Chalk circle.
If you are trying to model orbital motion, you need something to represent the force of gravity.
Friction keeps the bowls in orbit.
We have a torque free connection, just like gravity.
If you are trying to model orbital motion, you need something to represent the force of gravity.
Yes, the friction force counteracts the centripetal force.
#2
If you are trying to model orbital motion, you need something to represent the force of gravity.
Svante says:
“Friction keeps the bowls in orbit.
We have a torque free connection, just like gravity.”
==================================================
Svante gravity exerts torque on everything. So does your water experiment.
Its not a matter of manufacturing a defect in the cannonball. the issue is that gravity distorts everything.
Both the angular velocity of the orbit of the moon and its apparent rotation is caused by gravity acting on the same center of gravity, shifted by gravity distorting the object an identical distance from the center of mass thus eventually reducing independent rotation down to zero or at a minimum a ‘practical zero’.
I say ‘practical zero’ for a couple of reasons. One if you want the cannonball to remain fixed to the stars you will need to provide a force in the opposite direction. And two whats happening isn’t divisible, only how you attempt to characterize it is divisible.
Which leads us to the hazards of the academic world where academics takes on a life of its own often partially estranged from real world facts. Its on the border of this estrangement and skepticism of the ”good book” where discovery lurks.
Yet you guys can’t seem to see any of that and are on some apparently futile mission to the center of the universe. I said to Tim Folkerts it might be interesting to hear what the objective of that mission is since he suggested it had powerful reasons. But I didn’t hear back on that.
the fact is if you claim a central axis and you have non-zero values for velocity for the particles on that axis as the system is being influenced in more ways than one by the same force on the same point you are wrong. Also you can’t isolate it either. However, if you select the common barycenter of the earth moon you are at least consistent with the known rules.
You rote book learners are deceived by your artificial math processes and definitions into believing these concepts are divisible. bdgwx even said If your model of planetary motion ignores gravity then it will be horribly incompatible with observations. Like no shit!!!!
bill hunter says:
No, gravity doesn’t do that in the absence of friction.
It will just rotate at varying speed.
No, Isaac Newton taught us that it will remain fixed to the stars if there is no force on it.
Tim is a physics PhD and you are in kindergarten. You have no idea how solid the science is. Go back and see what Tim has said.
For example how the moon does not show us the same half side all the time. Easily explained by elliptical orbit and constant rotation on its own axis.
Yeah right, conspiracy!
“No, Isaac Newton taught us that it will remain fixed to the stars if there is no force on it.”
An object has to rotate to not remain fixed to the stars…but it does not have to rotate about its own axis. If an object is rotating about the Earth, instead, then it is moving as per the moon, with the same face presented towards the Earth at all times. It would then require a torque about its own axis to remain oriented to the stars. You have everything backwards. To rotate about the Earth (and this present the same face to Earth) only requires a torque about the axis going through the Earth, not about the axis going through the cm of the object itself.
Still awaiting the definition of ‘rotating about own axis’,
that works for Earth and Moon and everything else.
It needs to fit cases where the axis is moving.
It needs to fit cases where the axis is moving on a curved path like the Earth’s is doing.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
A force through the center of the object can not rotate it.
That’s pretty obvious.
A tight string becomes off center when the object continues on its inertial course.
“A force through the center of the object can not rotate it.”
It does not need to rotate it about its own axis (center of mass of the object). It only needs to rotate it about the Earth. There is not just gravity, it is gravity plus the perpendicular linear momentum, working together. This is what generates the rotation about the Earth.
Svante says:
May 29, 2020 at 3:15 AM
No, gravity doesnt do that in the absence of friction.
It will just rotate at varying speed.
=================================
Its called tidal locking and the friction is provided by the elongation of the object via the force of gravity and the friction is the forces of nature that hold things together. Since we are dealing with a rotating object the elongation moves in one direction and eventually it ends up with the center of gravity in line with the center of mean mass whereever that might be.
================================
=================================
No, Isaac Newton taught us that it will remain fixed to the stars if there is no force on it.
========================
You have that wrong. the movement of the cannonball around the earth will instantly create a force to move it to a position where the center of gravity is in line with the mean center of mass. If it starts up that way there is no force to move the ball out of its virtual linear path around the barycenter.
======================
======================
Tim is a physics PhD and you are in kindergarten. You have no idea how solid the science is. Go back and see what Tim has said.
For example how the moon does not show us the same half side all the time. Easily explained by elliptical orbit and constant rotation on its own axis.
========================
Tim said one could adopt any viewpoint, meaning the reasons are still beyond physics.
====================
====================
You rote book learners are deceived by your artificial math processes and definitions into believing these concepts are divisible.
Yeah right, conspiracy!
========================
No not conspiracy! Its inculcation!
======================
======================
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
An object has to rotate to not remain fixed to the starsbut it does not have to rotate about its own axis. If an object is rotating about the Earth, instead, then it is moving as per the moon, with the same face presented towards the Earth at all times. It would then require a torque about its own axis to remain oriented to the stars. You have everything backwards. To rotate about the Earth (and this present the same face to Earth) only requires a torque about the axis going through the Earth, not about the axis going through the cm of the object itself.
=========================
You Got It!!!!
===================
==================
Nate says:
that works for Earth and Moon and everything else.
It needs to fit cases where the axis is moving.
It needs to fit cases where the axis is moving on a curved path like the Earths is doing.
=====================
Wrong! General plane motion (rolling) isn’t a rotation. Nor is the illusion of a general plane motion.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
=======================
=======================
Svante says:
A force through the center of the object can not rotate it.
Thats pretty obvious.
A tight string becomes off center when the object continues on its inertial course.
======================
Thus the ball will simply follow a path.
=========================
=========================
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It does not need to rotate it about its own axis (center of mass of the object). It only needs to rotate it about the Earth. There is not just gravity, it is gravity plus the perpendicular linear momentum, working together. This is what generates the rotation about the Earth.
=============================
You got it!!!
bill says:
“the movement of the cannonball around the earth will instantly create a force to move it to a position where the center of gravity is in line with the mean center of mass.”
How can the center of gravity be different from the center of mass?
If it did you would have varying torque, but net zero after a full circle, so it would not stop an initial rotation.
“Its called tidal locking and the friction is provided by the elongation of the object via the force of gravity and the friction”
Congratulations, that’s why we only see one side of the moon.
So you think a cannonball would get tidally locked in the first orbit? Seriously?
Right Svante.
The TEAM thinks angular momentum is the same as rotation.
No rotation of ball can happen as a result of force applied thru its cm.
The fired cannonball has ang momentum L = mvr wrt the axis thru the Earth center.
It has L just by having linear momentum that is perpendicular to its r from the axis. L= rxp.
Even an asteroid flying past Earth has it.
It can get this from a force of cannon applied thru its cm, which makes a torque wrt to the Earth axis, by New 2 Law.
Sincs no torque applied rel to cm, no rotational L is created, by N2L. No rotation!
No rotation means no rotation wrt to stars, no change in orientation, no rotation wrt to space at all!
Axis is irrelevant.
#2
“A force through the center of the object can not rotate it.”
It does not need to rotate it about its own axis (center of mass of the object). It only needs to rotate it about the Earth. There is not just gravity, it is gravity plus the perpendicular linear momentum, working together. This is what generates the rotation about the Earth.
Svante says:
How can the center of gravity be different from the center of mass?
==========================
Through stretching the body into an egg shape by stretching the crust like the moon does to the earth with tides.
==============
==============
Svante says:
If it did you would have varying torque, but net zero after a full circle, so it would not stop an initial rotation.
=====================
I think you have consider that a tidal bulge traveling on a object rotating in relationship to the line of force represents a momentum that you can calculate in relationship to that force.
====================
====================
Congratulations, that’s why we only see one side of the moon.
So you think a cannonball would get tidally locked in the first orbit? Seriously?
============================
I think I was on record some time ago saying that I don’t know for sure.
I don’t think that concept is in conflict with the idea that it might take a million years to extract a second rotation out with stretch resistance after getting a single round of turn out of the gravitational field in one orbit.
“it is gravity plus the perpendicular linear momentum, working together.This is what generates the rotation about the Earth.”
‘Working together’ is that a physics law?
Never heard of it.
It seems to do whatever D needs it to do
Nate says:
“it is gravity plus the perpendicular linear momentum, working together.This is what generates the rotation about the Earth.”
‘Working together’ is that a physics law?
Never heard of it.
==============================
Hmmmm, never heard about how gravity works with the velocity of an object to quickly turn it around the earth?
You have your head in the sand or what?
“Hmmmm, never heard about how gravity works with the velocity of an object to quickly turn it around the earth?”
Yes I heard of it. Its called an orbit. Newton worked it out with his laws 350 y ago.
But his laws don’t require every object to orbit like the Moon.
His laws of motion were designed to be universal.
They apply to tidally-locked orbits, like the Moon-Earth, not-tidally-locked orbits like the cannonball-Earth, the Earth-Sun, all the other planets-sun, and tidally locked orbits where spin-orbit are not in a 1:1 resonance, like Mercury-Sun. Both planet and Moon spinning in resonance like future Earth-Moon.
A 1:1 resonance like current Earth-Moon is just one possibility.
Not sure why you guys think that should be the MODEL for all orbits??
The description of motion (kinematics) in terms of translations and rotations in an inertial frame of reference is universally applicable, not just for one specific type or orbit.
You guys are operating under the old ‘what we see in front of us is what we have’ POV, that operated for millennia before Galileo and Newton. And what we have is whatever “seems right”.
This POV gives us the Sun, Moon, stars and planets orbiting the Earth. It gives us the Flat Earth. It gives us the natural state of motion is at rest.
It doesnt agree with many additional observations and measurements: modern empirical sciences of physics, engineering or astronomy.
Nate says:
“Hmmmm, never heard about how gravity works with the velocity of an object to quickly turn it around the earth?”
Yes I heard of it. Its called an orbit. Newton worked it out with his laws 350 y ago.
But his laws don’t require every object to orbit like the Moon.
His laws of motion were designed to be universal.
They apply to tidally-locked orbits, like the Moon-Earth, not-tidally-locked orbits like the cannonball-Earth, the Earth-Sun, all the other planets-sun, and tidally locked orbits where spin-orbit are not in a 1:1 resonance, like Mercury-Sun. Both planet and Moon spinning in resonance like future Earth-Moon.
A 1:1 resonance like current Earth-Moon is just one possibility.
Not sure why you guys think that should be the MODEL for all orbits??
The description of motion (kinematics) in terms of translations and rotations in an inertial frame of reference is universally applicable, not just for one specific type or orbit.
You guys are operating under the old ‘what we see in front of us is what we have’ POV, that operated for millennia before Galileo and Newton. And what we have is whatever “seems right”.
This POV gives us the Sun, Moon, stars and planets orbiting the Earth. It gives us the Flat Earth. It gives us the natural state of motion is at rest.
It doesnt agree with many additional observations and measurements: modern empirical sciences of physics, engineering or astronomy.
Nate says:
May 30, 2020 at 6:05 AM
Hmmmm, never heard about how gravity works with the velocity of an object to quickly turn it around the earth?
Yes I heard of it. Its called an orbit. Newton worked it out with his laws 350 y ago.
But his laws dont require every object to orbit like the Moon.
His laws of motion were designed to be universal.
They apply to tidally-locked orbits, like the Moon-Earth, not-tidally-locked orbits like the cannonball-Earth, the Earth-Sun, all the other planets-sun, and tidally locked orbits where spin-orbit are not in a 1:1 resonance, like Mercury-Sun. Both planet and Moon spinning in resonance like future Earth-Moon.
A 1:1 resonance like current Earth-Moon is just one possibility.
Not sure why you guys think that should be the MODEL for all orbits??
The description of motion (kinematics) in terms of translations and rotations in an inertial frame of reference is universally applicable, not just for one specific type or orbit.
You guys are operating under the old what we see in front of us is what we have POV, that operated for millennia before Galileo and Newton. And what we have is whatever seems right.
This POV gives us the Sun, Moon, stars and planets orbiting the Earth. It gives us the Flat Earth. It gives us the natural state of motion is at rest.
It doesnt agree with many additional observations and measurements: modern empirical sciences of physics, engineering or astronomy.
=======================================
LOL! Nate your post is verbatim exactly the same argument that a flat earther would make.
Flat earthers don’t need to be ignorant of what is thought to be known. You can still be a cut, dyed, and dried in the wool flat earther.
A flat earther is absolutely tied to the technology of the day and can’t envision beyond his own ignorance (ignorance beyond the current state of the art).
Tim outlines 3 arguments of A) the moon traveling on a track, B) of a moon on a leash, and a weird one of C) a moon where all points rotate about some axis at a constant rate with respect to the fixed stars.
C is the flat earth version of the 3 choices. I will try to make an argument for that case.
First off there are no ‘fixed stars’ so the first little bit of fiction comes in. I am not saying its not a worthwhile viewpoint. After all there really wasn’t much wrong with the flat earth model for most intents and purposes. Stuff like horizons and weaving stars though started making it a bit queer. The notion of fixed stars makes Tims favorite one a bit queer perhaps in the same way.
Second, OK so understanding that perspective is everything and often deceiving. I will provide a little discourse on other possibilities. In my opinion Tim’s list may have missed an option. I am not sure of the exact nature of the option so I will include a whole bunch of them in one. D) A and B of the above and more.
I have been making arguments for D, albeit somewhat awkwardly. So what is the evidence for D? Well there is a peculiar residue of physics that keeps the door open for all the options. Tim is aware that C is at least partially incorrect because he knows the stars move. But he likes it because it gives support for an imaginary axis around which all rotations can be judged to be the same. Its neat, its tidy, it serves the purpose I pointed out right at the start it makes a great layout for an astronomical database. . . .and gee perhaps A) or B) doesn’t even exist.
But I don’t like C because its seems to be a flat earth-type model.
I also think that at least some of the folks holding to A) and B) are well aware that their view is consistent in a far larger context that C) isn’t because of its specification of ‘fixed stars’.
So we have rotation also around the galaxy, gee did we just add another rotation? I mean just like that out of nowhere? Did the mgr suddenly get a little harder to turn as is implied by your equations for the force required to rotate the globes on the mgr?
I am perfectly aware that these phantomish forces are could be real but immaterial to most calculations.
Well we can patch up C and find a star outside of the galaxy to fix upon. We just chalk up another rotation on the axis and we are good. Move along there is nothing to see here.
So are we done? Are there more orders of orbital dynamics? Sure there must be if we believe gravity will eventually reign in the big bang as we should with our current understanding. So gee I guess we need to add yet another rotation to the moon.
Are we done? LOL! WTFK!!!! Oh Nate he knows he is right? right?
I suppose some astronomer might be able to shoot that down now or maybe in the future or that all these rotations contain the proper amount of energy for the moon’s rotational momentum once we figure out how many of them there are.
One possibility of where this is all headed seems to be here: https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf where this engineer doesn’t ascribe an axis for general plane motion and states its not a rotation. I might be mischaracterizing the paper as the calculations he provided for some reason didn’t come through on my pdf so I can’t actually verify all that I implied above. All I can go by are his words.
“LOL! Nate your post is verbatim exactly the same argument that a flat earther would make.”
Bill, you have a weird take on things.
Flat Earthers are very much in line with you guys.
They ‘see’ that the Earth appears flat, just as you guys ‘see’ that the Moon is not rotating.
Both of you conclude that what you see is the way things are.
Like you guys, they reject what modern science has concluded about the Earth, when it disagrees with what you guys see.
The main similarity is that both you guys and Flat Earthers are tidally-locked in orbits around contrarian ideas that give a big middle finger to mainstream science.
Nate says:
Bill, you have a weird take on things.
Flat Earthers are very much in line with you guys.
===============================
Got it Nate. Your full argument on this is flat earthers are anybody who doesn’t agree with a flat earther.
================
=================
================
Nate says:
They see that the Earth appears flat, just as you guys see that the Moon is not rotating.
===========================
None of us said even once that the moon isn’t rotating. Where the heck did you dream that up from?
================
=================
================
Nate says:
Both of you conclude that what you see is the way things are.
==================
Well if you can see things clearly different ways from different perspectives you are free to follow the perspective of your choosing. I just think that perhaps you should be able to mathematically explain your point of view without getting your signs messed up. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-479026
================
=================
================
Nate says:
Like you guys, they reject what modern science has concluded about the Earth, when it disagrees with what you guys see.
==================
Concluded? You mean Tim and astronomers have concluded. You might want to exclude engineers.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
================
=================
================
Nate says:
The main similarity is that both you guys and Flat Earthers are tidally-locked in orbits around contrarian ideas that give a big middle finger to mainstream science.
=========================
Its your job to show our ideas are contrarian to the way we see things.
Mainstream science? Whats that? Is that science plus cult science?
“Mainstream science? Whats that? Is that science plus cult science?”
Clearly Bill, you have a strong anti-science bias, Bill.
“Concluded? You mean Tim and astronomers have concluded.”
Yes. This is absolutely BASIC textbook physics and astronomy, known for centuries. Things like this in textbooks have been well tested.
Why would astronomers have such basic and useful concepts wrong for centuries, until some now, when armchair internet contrarians have finally figured out that they have been doing it all wrong.
Riiiight…just like Flat Earthers have done.
“You might want to exclude engineers.”
Why? Engineering textbooks are very clear about their description of motion in terms of translation and rotation in inertial frames and it agrees with physics and astronomy.
Engineers all take freshmen physics with the very same concepts. There has been no en-masse revolt against this education by engineering faculty that I’m aware of.
Please do show us engineering textbooks that agree with you.
I wont hold my breath.
Engineers landed Apollo on the Moon, remember.
There are plans now to go back and land at the S. Pole of the Moon, where the Moon’s axis of rotation, tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis, pierces the surface.
According to you guys’ bizarre ideas, there is no such place.
“Its your job to show our ideas are contrarian to the way we see things.”
Very confusing.
In any case, had my fill of SHOWING you things that are never read or digested, and summarily dismissed.
You filter science facts thru ideological/political glasses.
That leads to ideology-driven science, like feminist cosmology (this is real), that rejects Big Bang theory because it is too violent, agressive and male-oriented.
Nate says:
May 31, 2020 at 7:04 AM
Mainstream science? Whats that? Is that science plus cult science?
Clearly Bill, you have a strong anti-science bias, Bill.
Concluded? You mean Tim and astronomers have concluded.
Yes. This is absolutely BASIC textbook physics and astronomy, known for centuries. Things like this in textbooks have been well tested.
Why would astronomers have such basic and useful concepts wrong for centuries, until some now, when armchair internet contrarians have finally figured out that they have been doing it all wrong.
Riiiightjust like Flat Earthers have done.
You might want to exclude engineers.
Why? Engineering textbooks are very clear about their description of motion in terms of translation and rotation in inertial frames and it agrees with physics and astronomy.
Engineers all take freshmen physics with the very same concepts. There has been no en-masse revolt against this education by engineering faculty that Im aware of.
Please do show us engineering textbooks that agree with you.
I wont hold my breath.
Engineers landed Apollo on the Moon, remember.
There are plans now to go back and land at the S. Pole of the Moon, where the Moons axis of rotation, tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis, pierces the surface.
According to you guys bizarre ideas, there is no such place.
==================================
Bias against science??? Where did you get that? Did Galileo have a bias against science when he went against all the scientists with credentials and compared them to Simplicio?
I provided calculations for review and comment and what do you do? You ignored them. May the force be with you Nate, see ya.
Nate says:
Its your job to show our ideas are contrarian to the way we see things.
Very confusing.
In any case, had my fill of SHOWING you things that are never read or digested, and summarily dismissed.
You filter science facts thru ideological/political glasses.
That leads to ideology-driven science, like feminist cosmology (this is real), that rejects Big Bang theory because it is too violent, agressive and male-oriented.
=====================================
Who said I was opposed to the Big Bang Theory Nate. You are just trying to change the subject. I provided a logical based math argument that appears to show the force is with the non-spinners and you are just dodging and obfuscating just like you always do.
“I provided calculations for review and comment and what do you do? You ignored them.”
Pretty obvious projection going on there, Bill.
“Who said I was opposed to the Big Bang Theory Nate.”
No one. You cant read.
More evidence of points flying way over your head.
“Did Galileo have a bias against science”
You really think of yourself as a Galileo type?
The very man who introduced to us the inertial frame of reference, and why its needed to understand the physics of motion.
Hilarious and sad.
Nate says:
“Did Galileo have a bias against science”
You really think of yourself as a Galileo type?
The very man who introduced to us the inertial frame of reference, and why its needed to understand the physics of motion.
Hilarious and sad.
==============================
Dr. Madhavi’s dissertation on these motions are clear. A tidal locked orbiting moon is not rotating on its central axis but is instead rolling around around the earth on a virtual track as if it were in contact with a track. that motion has an appearance of a rotation about a central axis but he clearly says it is something else.
He terms it as a rolling variant of general plane motion. His definition for rotation on a central axis is very clearly different and exclusive from what the moon is doing, where it is rotating but its rotating around the earth’s center of gravity.
Do you remain in denial of that?
One should clearly be able to tell when somebody is in an arcane semantic argument rather than an actual physics argument.
If you want to be a xenophobe with the engineers around here and you really aren’t confused you need to clearly express that. If you aren’t aware of that then perhaps you have your head buried in the sand.
And no I am not claiming having invented frames of reference nor have I even claimed to be physicist. I have stated what I am and what I do. It’s interesting how unaccountable you want to be. In my trade clients are a lot more forthcoming and non-obfuscating. Of course they sometimes require my services and realize that obfuscation (when they have nothing to hide) is going to do nothing more than cost them more money. Now if Galileo had possessed that power he would not have had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest and the Church would have had to make an adjustment to their pronouncements and allow for the free distribution of Galileo’s manuscript. but instead the Church chose to obfuscate, arrested Galileo, and prohibited publication of his manuscript. . . .a not too distant analog to the obfuscation and actions of the present day except perhaps the arrest part has been manifested as ”your fired” or ”grant denied” which has the same effect.
Nate says:
“Who said I was opposed to the Big Bang Theory Nate.”
No one. You cant read.
More evidence of points flying way over your head.
===================================
Thats what I said you are trying to change the subject and associate me with such a belief. Why else would you bring it up?
So now you are reduced to obfuscation about your obfuscation. You are a real piece of work Nate.
Bill,
You just dont make a lot of sense. You dont respond to what I write but respond to whats in your head.
You miss most points, either because you are dense, or because you are just here to troll.
Undoubtedly you are also misinterpreting Madhavi.
Quote specifics, with page and paragraph, that you think agree with you guys.
I find nowhere that he is discussing the Moon’s orbit.
‘There are plans now to go back and land at the S. Pole of the Moon, where the Moons axis of rotation, tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis, pierces the surface.’
Again, how are they going to land at a place that you dont think exists?
Nate says:
May 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM
There are plans now to go back and land at the S. Pole of the Moon, where the Moons axis of rotation, tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis, pierces the surface.
Again, how are they going to land at a place that you dont think exists?
===================================
They can definitely land there as long as they don’t believe ‘The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.’
If they believe that they are probably going to miss the entire moon.
I would love to stay and discuss us further but some of us actually have their time in demand and work for a living.
As expected, whenever asked for specifics, you have none.
“They can definitely land there ” on the Moon’s axis?
But if the Moon is definitely NOT ROTATING on an axis thru the Moon, then there is such place that can be defined, much less found.
Nate says:
“They can definitely land there ” on the Moon’s axis?
But if the Moon is definitely NOT ROTATING on an axis thru the Moon, then there is such place that can be defined, much less found.
===============================
Even a non-rotating orbiting object has a northpole Nate.
Its as simple to find as changing your perspective. Just look at it from the outside the orbit. Then its the same process as you would apply to a rotating moon. Create a couple of meridians and you have a cross hair on the north pole.
Looking for a job? Glad to be of assistance. Hope it helps.
“Even a non-rotating orbiting object has a northpole Nate.”
Nope. No rotation, no sunrise, no sunset, no pole.
A thing that does not exist and cannot be defined, cannot be found.
But please to do try to define it.
Then try to define Axial Tilt, and Axial Precession, parameters that shouldnt exist, but Astronomy can easily determine for the Moon.
Nate says:
“Even a non-rotating orbiting object has a northpole Nate.”
Nope. No rotation, no sunrise, no sunset, no pole.
A thing that does not exist and cannot be defined, cannot be found.
But please to do try to define it.
Then try to define Axial Tilt, and Axial Precession, parameters that shouldnt exist, but Astronomy can easily determine for the Moon.
===================================
You probably ought to learn to can it about real world stuff you know little about. No reason why an orbiting planet wouldn’t have tilt and axial precession as it is a rotation Nate and with two major gravity objects inflicting measurable variation.
Never heard of star navigation huh? It’s no different finding the northpole for a rotating planet than an orbiting non-rotating planet. If you want difficulty finding a northpole it would be a planet traveling in a straight line with no orbit and no rotation (e.g. technically not having a north pole, unless of course geology controls the center of spin). Of course no such object exists in the universe AFAWK. Simply provide a list of them if you find one.
One of my many short careers, involved navigation. I haven’t done navigation from scratch (without charts, chart tools, compasses, sextants, etc) so without data bases and knowledge of orbits and orbital tilt and axial tilt and precessions it would be a real challenge that would only arise upon observed unexpected error.
That would require a lot of head scratching and self doubt about your previous diligence in recording everything correctly. Since your challenge is to actually find a north pole when somebody is looking at a moon that isn’t spinning. The biggest challenge to overcome would be finding a reason to look for it. Yet most of this stuff was already discovered even before we gave up on the geocentric model of the universe. That says a lot about dedication.
But looking back on history and possessing some basic navigation skills its very easy to see how it would be done with the moon and for a moon that showed all its sides to earth in a single orbit. Redoing it from scratch with 18th century tools would take many years to resolve the observational errors that kept showing up. But as long as there is a rotation of any sort axial or orbital finding the translating axis doesn’t pose any kind of special problem.
As an aside this is real truth. It doesn’t require special intelligence, like special grey matter in their head, to do these things though we recognize people as being especially intelligent for finding this kind of stuff. Real intelligence arises out of curiosity, dedication, purpose, perseverance, and a will to just fking getting the job done. Perhaps we can dub it a Trumpian Meme? God gave just about all of us the tools to do it, just that only a few have those other qualities.
“Never heard of star navigation huh? It’s no different finding the northpole for a rotating planet than an orbiting non-rotating planet.”
Lots of yada yada, but no answer to what was asked.
The Earth has well defined Poles which are located where its axis of rotation pierces the surface.
It has an axial tilt of 23.5 degrees. Its axis currently points to the North star, but its axis precesses. It has an Axial Precession period of ~ 16000 y.
You guys repeatedly claimed that the Moon has no axis of rotation thru it.
Define a Pole for such an object. Where would its Pole be?
Define Axial Tilt for such an object without an axis of rotation.
Define Axial Precession Period.
All of these can be defined and measured in the standard model of the rotating Moon.
If it can’t be done in your model, then your model is wrong. Simple as that.
Correction:
Earth Axial Precession period of ~ 26000 y.
Nate says:
Never heard of star navigation huh? It’s no different finding the northpole for a rotating planet than an orbiting non-rotating planet.
Lots of yada yada, but no answer to what was asked.
The Earth has well defined Poles which are located where its axis of rotation pierces the surface.
It has an axial tilt of 23.5 degrees. Its axis currently points to the North star, but its axis precesses. It has an Axial Precession period of ~ 16000 y.
You guys repeatedly claimed that the Moon has no axis of rotation thru it.
Define a Pole for such an object. Where would its Pole be?
Define Axial Tilt for such an object without an axis of rotation.
Define Axial Precession Period.
All of these can be defined and measured in the standard model of the rotating Moon.
If it cant be done in your model, then your model is wrong. Simple as that.
=================================
Now you are getting angry and irrational. Clearly from the perspective of the stars you can define an axis. Its a something you learn in drafting classes when you draw different perspectives.
But I will ask you the same question I asked bdgwx. If the moon is spinning on its axis and it is tidal locked with the earth, is it then the case that the earth is spinning around the moon? If not why not?
“But I will ask you the same question I asked bdgwx. If the moon is spinning on its axis and it is tidal locked with the earth, is it then the case that the earth is spinning around the moon? If not why not?”
I’ll be happy to answer that, Bill, just as soon as you answer my questions, now asked and evaded twice.
Nate says:
Never heard of star navigation huh? It’s no different finding the northpole for a rotating planet than an orbiting non-rotating planet.
You guys repeatedly claimed that the Moon has no axis of rotation thru it.
==============================
Strawman Alert!!!!
Nate what we said repeated was: The moon is not rotating on ITS OWN AXIS!!!!
==============================
==============================
Nate says:
Define a Pole for such an object. Where would its Pole be?
Define Axial Tilt for such an object without an axis of rotation.
Define Axial Precession Period.
All of these can be defined and measured in the standard model of the rotating Moon.
If it cant be done in your model, then your model is wrong. Simple as that.
==============================
Well it can be done and in fact has been done.
The only difference in our model is identifying the correct axis of rotation. That doesn’t change a single other thing. Obviously either way the old man in the moon will be staring at us.
All we are doing is pointing out what should be obvious. A myth built on the concept that gravity creates no torque on a sphere, inculcated, inculcated, and inculcated, but only an illusion of reality in the halls of academia as there is no sphere without torque being applied from gravity via tidal stretching.
And irrelevant for all known purposes as it doesn’t change anything. But you guys are so bad at this you claim globes welded to the deck of a merry-go-round are rotating on their own axes. Thats living in a dream world for sure.
“Well it can be done and in fact has been done.”
And you are going to show me how that is done?
Where?
I think you forgot to attach that.
??
It seems clear, Bill, that you want the Moon to have an axis, since various axial parameters have been observed.
But you don’t want its axis to be DEFINED BY the Moon’s rotation around that axis,
as it is for the Earth and all other planets.
Well, that is a very very tall logical mountain to climb.
No wonder you keep throwing out chaff to evade the issue.
Nate says:
June 2, 2020 at 5:04 AM
Well it can be done and in fact has been done.
And you are going to show me how that is done?
Where?
I think you forgot to attach that.
??
===================================
No need to post it. Its the exact same method you would use if the moon were not orbiting and rotating on its own axis. What you are being exceedingly slow to grasp is the world turns over your head whether you are on a merry-go-round or you are and ice skater spinning on the axis that is the toe of her skate.
Perhaps all the merry-go-rounds you ever rode on had a canopy so you couldn’t see the sky.
Nate says:
It seems clear, Bill, that you want the Moon to have an axis, since various axial parameters have been observed.
But you dont want its axis to be DEFINED BY the Moons rotation around that axis,
as it is for the Earth and all other planets.
Well, that is a very very tall logical mountain to climb.
No wonder you keep throwing out chaff to evade the issue.
=====================================
It is a heirarchial system indeed. We can ignore that because when we select stars as a fixed point the difference between rotating on the earth’s COG versus the appearance of a rotational axis on the moon is a few orders of magnitude less than the accuracy of the instruments we use to detect rotation.
“We can ignore that because when we select stars as a fixed point the difference between rotating on the earth’s COG versus the appearance of a rotational axis on the moon is a few orders of magnitude less than the accuracy of the instruments we use to detect rotation.”
Desperate times call for the largest diameter BS hose.
6.7 degrees >> resolution of the instruments.
Nate says:
We can ignore that because when we select stars as a fixed point the difference between rotating on the earth’s COG versus the appearance of a rotational axis on the moon is a few orders of magnitude less than the accuracy of the instruments we use to detect rotation.
Desperate times call for the largest diameter BS hose.
6.7 degrees >> resolution of the instruments.
======================================
What I was saying you could ignore Nate was any navigational difference in degrees between using earth as a reference point vs using the moon using the nearest star as a guide post. It works out to about .0000005 degrees. The moons tilt is an entirely different issue. https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/lunar-polar-ice-reveals-tilting-axis-of-earths-moon/
‘when we select stars as a fixed point the difference between rotating on the earth’s COG versus the appearance of a rotational axis on the moon is a few orders of magnitude less than the accuracy of the instruments we use to detect rotation.’
I have no idea what this means, Bill. You are evading the main issue.
Planetary Axes are DEFINED in terms of the planet’s rotation around these axes.
That is obvious for the Earth whose axis is tilted 23.5 degrees to its orbital axis.
Without any planetary rotation, a sphere has NO AXIS that can be defined or found.
The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
That it means it must have an axis.
That means, according to the definition of an axis, it has rotation around that axis.
Unless you think axis should be defined differently for the Moon (why?), and can come up with any definition that would work, the Moon must be rotating around its axis.
To deny this simple fact is like denying that 11 > 9.
Nate says:
when we select stars as a fixed point the difference between rotating on the earth’s COG versus the appearance of a rotational axis on the moon is a few orders of magnitude less than the accuracy of the instruments we use to detect rotation.
I have no idea what this means, Bill. You are evading the main issue.
Planetary Axes are DEFINED in terms of the planets rotation around these axes.
That is obvious for the Earth whose axis is tilted 23.5 degrees to its orbital axis.
==================================
Nobody I know has said the earth doesn’t spin on its axis Nate.
===================================
===================================
Nate says:
Without any planetary rotation, a sphere has NO AXIS that can be defined or found.
==================================
You are flaunting your ignorance Nate. An axis can be defined via reference to its orbital spin.
===================================
===================================
Nate says:
The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
That it means it must have an axis.
==================================
You are flaunting your ignorance Nate. An axis can be defined via reference to its orbital spin.
===================================
===================================
Nate says:
That means, according to the definition of an axis, it has rotation around that axis.
==================================
You are flaunting your ignorance Nate. We are talking here about what things do and clearly demonstration what they and you are talking about what yo dada told you they do and suggest we look it up in a dictionary.
===================================
===================================
Nate says:
Unless you think axis should be defined differently for the Moon (why?), and can come up with any definition that would work, the Moon must be rotating around its axis.
To deny this simple fact is like denying that 11 > 9.
===============================
According to your dictionary? Then explain why a ball welded on its axis or a chalked circle rotates on their own axes when its the ground rotating under their feet.
“You are flaunting your ignorance Nate. An axis can be defined via reference to its orbital spin.”
You repeat this over and over yet never actually define it.
Hilarious.
Please do correct me on my ignorance and state your definition.
I guarantee you can’t.
“You are flaunting your ignorance Nate. An axis can be defined via reference to its orbital spin.”
Oh I see.
No actually I don’t.
The Moon has an orbital axis. It also has a rotational axis. That is the one tilted at 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
Notice that there are TWO DIFFERENT axes.
2 is more than 1.
Do you honestly NOT SEE that the second axis is NOT its orbital axis?
It is something else.
If you cannot sensibly explain what that something else is, than you are done. Go home.
Or do you simply not care about facts and reality and are just here to TROLL??
sure I can define it. An axis is an imaginary line drawn at in the middle of either a rotating object or an object that appears to be rotating. An object that only appears to be rotating is actually rotating around another axis. The way to determine if this is the case the axis of such an object can be observed translating a revolving path around another axis at an identical rate and direction as the appearance of the rotation on that axis.
In other words a simple translation of motion.
One cannot mistake it because the motion, direction, and rate cannot be duplicated by objects rotating around two different axes independently.
Hows that for a definition? If you have a problem with that then either demonstrate that an object can be rotating independently while its axis translates a path around another axis in the same direction and at the same rate of rotation rate of turn. or prove the moon is not orbiting the earth.
You won’t be able to do it because any rotation on its own axis in those circumstands is ruled out by the argument here:
Ball4 you have the same challenge to prove your case for rigid body dynamics. Lets have a race to see who is still trying to solve the riddle the last without comprehending what is really going on. You will win an award as the slowest person in the class. . . .congratulations in advance to who ever proves to be the winner or if both of you hang in there you can share the prize.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-480694
“Ball4 you have the same challenge to prove your case for rigid body dynamics.”
bob has already done so. I passed a course similar Madhavi’s and bill has yet to catch on. Test bill’s axis definition against the lab course:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-481720
Bill is making an effort. Lets see.
“An axis is an imaginary line drawn at in the middle of either a rotating object or an object that appears to be rotating.”
Lets stop right there. Appears to be? What does that mean? That sounds like code for ‘is rotating’ but Id prefer it not be.
“An object that only appears to be rotating is actually rotating around another axis. The way to determine if this is the case the axis of such an object can be observed translating a revolving path around another axis at an identical rate and direction as the appearance of the rotation on that axis.”
Well, first, all other planets, are INDEPENDENTLY rotating while also translating in their orbit. You have no problem with that because they are not rotating around the orbital axis “at an identical rate and direction”.
In fact the MOON’s rotation is at an identical rate, but NOT IN AN IDENTICAL DIRECTION.
That is the whole point of AXIAL TILT, which for the MOON is 6.7 degrees.
The fact that the axis is tilted at 6.7 degrees means it is an INDEPENDENT rotation, with its own parameters, just like it is for Earth with its 23.5 degree axial tilt.
So, sorry, nice try, but NO, this definition fails for the Moon.
Let me also address “the MOONs rotation is at an identical rate”.
Not really, as it would be in a rigid body rotation which is your go to MODEL.
While the orbital rate speeds up and slows down thru the elliptical orbit, the Moon’s rate of rotation is constant throughout.
Again this is evidence of an independent rotation, fixed by conservation of angular momentum.
so nate believes any thing that is tilted is rotating on its own axis. you guys are contorting yourselves like pretzels. actually astronomers believe that about 5 degrees of the tilt is due to the rigid nature of tidal locking
“so nate believes any thing that is tilted is rotating on its own axis. you guys are contorting yourselves like pretzels.”
No Bill, no contortion whatsoever.
It is quite SIMPLE. The tilt I am referring to is AXIAL TILT.
What other tilt is there?
That means there is a second axis, but you have not DEFINED what an axis is.
Why is so difficult? Because deep down you realize that an axis of a sphere can only be defined by the rotation around it.
The second axis does not fit into your hypothesis, so unwilling to give up on your belief, you put it in the ‘appears to be rotation’ category, again undefined.
Its like you live in Flatland (look it up), where people have never heard of the third dimension and cannot possibly define it.
Nate says:
June 5, 2020 at 9:42 AM
“so nate believes any thing that is tilted is rotating on its own axis. you guys are contorting yourselves like pretzels.”
No Bill, no contortion whatsoever.
It is quite SIMPLE. The tilt I am referring to is AXIAL TILT.
What other tilt is there?
That means there is a second axis, but you have not DEFINED what an axis is.
Why is so difficult? Because deep down you realize that an axis of a sphere can only be defined by the rotation around it.
The second axis does not fit into your hypothesis, so unwilling to give up on your belief, you put it in the ‘appears to be rotation’ category, again undefined.
Its like you live in Flatland (look it up), where people have never heard of the third dimension and cannot possibly define it.
=================================================
So you can’t demonstrate that the moon rotates on the axis and you failed to show the test I provided wasn’t correct.
So now you claim actually the earth rotates around the moon as the only possible way to keep one face pointed to earth and that is proven by the moons tilt.
I think maybe you should actually make an argument for that rather than simply claim it to be true.
“so nate believes any thing that is tilted is rotating on its own axis.”
Oh, I didnt realize just how dumb this was.
No Bill, the Moon is not like a horse on a MGR, that was given a permanent tilt when a heavy child sat on it.
That tilted horse points to different stars as the MGR rotates.
The Moons axis points to the same stars as it orbits.
“So you cant demonstrate that the moon rotates on the axis and you failed to show the test I provided wasnt correct.”
False x 2.
Lying and trolling is the only option when facts are working against you.
“So now you claim actually the earth rotates around the moon as the only possible way to keep one face pointed to earth and that is proven by the moons tilt.”
Non sequitur.
Bill, clearly you’re hopelessly in denial of the facts, and not here to debate honestly.
Good for you Nate. Skepticism is healthy. Good question.
But you need to explain why a tilt defines the axis of a spin. Quite honestly I haven’t thought much about it.
I am simply operating on a very simple demonstration that the apparent spin from space is in fact the moon moving around the earth not the moon physically moving around its own axis and the inability to spin the moon independent of its revolution around the earth makes it impossible for the moon to rotate on its own axis, physically impossible.
Thats a really hard core test of the concept. Now you argue the tilt proves that test is wrong. You need to first figure out why it makes it wrong and argue the point. Don’t ask me to figure it out for you. Take some intiative Nate that is the process of discovery. So you need to do your Sherlock Holmes thing on this thing that you have noted to be inconsistent.
“I am simply operating on a very simple demonstration that the apparent spin from space is in fact the moon moving around the earth not the moon physically moving around its own axis and the inability to spin the moon independent of its revolution around the earth makes it impossible for the moon to rotate on its own axis, physically impossible.”
You are stating a hypothesis there, not a fact.
The observed facts that people have brought up over and over, Axial Tilt, etc, do not fit this hypothesis.
“But you need to explain why a tilt defines the axis of a spin. Quite honestly I havent thought much about it.”
Thats why I kept prodding and explaining. Thinking is required.
A sphere has no a-priori head and tail like a horse. No defined axis like a cylinder.
Its axes are completely determined by its motion, its rotation, and orbit.
The Earth’s axis is a clear example. There is no reason for the N. Pole to be where it is other than its relation to the Earth’s axis of rotation wrt the stars. At the Pole, the stars circle around the North Star which is directly overhead. This is clear evidence that the Earth is rotating around this axis.
Its axis points 23.5 degrees away from the orbital axis. Two independent axes.
On the Moon’s N. Pole, the stars look the same as on the Earth’s N pole. There is one point in the sky that the Moons axis points to. Therefore the Moon must be rotating around this axis.
This axis points is 6.7 degrees away from the orbital axis. It is an independent axis of rotation.
Nate says:
The observed facts that people have brought up over and over, Axial Tilt, etc, do not fit this hypothesis.
A sphere has no a-priori head and tail like a horse. No defined axis like a cylinder.
Its axes are completely determined by its motion, its rotation, and orbit.
=====================================
Obviously you have little experience in building stuff. Your parents must not have bought you an erector set when you a kid.
OK we have a mgr with vertical axis. We mount a circular plate on it to mount our globes on but we mount the plate tilted to the axis.
Then we weld some axels on to the plate at the same angle of tilt to the plate as the plate is tilted on the mgr axis to maintain orientation to the real axis of this system.
So that these globes are mounted on axels parallel to the mgr axis.
Then we weld the globes to the axels. Turn on the mgr and you have the globes rotating with the axels pointed in the same direction as the axis of the mgr/orbit. Nothing at all complicated about that. More interesting is how it may have come about to be that way. Casual reading suggests it was introduced via the tidal locking process.
The moon could have been tilted on its axis in any direction originally like the earth is tilted on its orbital axis, but as the moon became tidal locked the axis could have changed to a gravitational alignment with the earth/sun.
A close inspection of that hypothesis is born out that all but about 1 1/2 degrees of the moons tilt is accounted for the moon’s orbit tilt does not control its own axis, instead the tilt is more than 5 degrees toward an equatorial gravitational alignment with the ecliptic.
The remaining 1 1/2 degrees could be explained by the variance of being jointly controlled by the sun and earth as its relative position to those controls varies as it orbits.
So its my conclusion you are imagining yet another effect as you imagine the moon rotating on its own axis. You actually need to either build some models to test your thoughts to keep them organized or work on your ability to visualize things you can build. I realize building those things don’t bring you gravitational control but you can check those out with calculations of gravity, detecting how the axis tilt has no influence on the gravitational field except to the extent of the elliptical nature of the orbit.
That last part is the most complicated of accounting for the last degree and a half where it must be plotted and reduced to gravity functions. I suspect somebody has already done that.
But while pondering all that keep in mind the default is the unassailable logic that if the moon rotates on its own axis you have to vary which face of the moon you see from earth.
Astronomy doesn’t have to worry about that. They can just simply adopt the axis the moon has. It doesn’t matter to them if its gravity controlled or independently spin controlled. That doesn’t change anything they need to worry about because they are not yet at the level of science where they have actually started to build new universes, galaxies, or solar systems.
Astronomers seem more engaged in understanding the creation of the universe on a much higher macro level and what happens when you fly into a blackhole.
Engineers working on the topic of discussion here are those building space modules. They did some work for moon orbits but found it rather non useful as the forces were too miniscule to be an issue. But its started up again as consideration for missions to orbit irregular shaped objects like asteroids where the forces needed for spin stablization might actually dip into fuel reserves. If all that things did was spin on their own axis there would be no worry about that. Demonstrating once again how your inculcation has led to ridiculous extrapolations.
The Earths axis is a clear example. There is no reason for the N. Pole to be where it is other than its relation to the Earths axis of rotation wrt the stars. At the Pole, the stars circle around the North Star which is directly overhead. This is clear evidence that the Earth is rotating around this axis.
Its axis points 23.5 degrees away from the orbital axis. Two independent axes.
On the Moons N. Pole, the stars look the same as on the Earths N pole. There is one point in the sky that the Moons axis points to. Therefore the Moon must be rotating around this axis.
This axis points is 6.7 degrees away from the orbital axis. It is an independent axis of rotation.
Bill,
“Quite honestly I havent thought much about it.”
Thats why you need to read thru my post, which has a very succinct clear explanation, and respond to it point by point. Tell me where you depart.
Instead it is just ignored. Then you write a lengthy essay and expect me to wade thru it?
No thanks.
First respond to the specifics of my post, then I’ll be happy to look at these.
” Turn on the mgr and you have the globes rotating with the axels pointed in the same direction as the axis of the mgr/orbit. Nothing at all complicated about that.”
Proposing any gadget that doesnt behave like the actual Moon has no bearing (Ha!) on the Moon situation.
As I stated but you ignored, the Moon’s axis is pointed to a fixed position in the sky, at 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
Nate says:
June 5, 2020 at 5:49 PM
” Turn on the mgr and you have the globes rotating with the axels pointed in the same direction as the axis of the mgr/orbit. Nothing at all complicated about that.”
Proposing any gadget that doesnt behave like the actual Moon has no bearing (Ha!) on the Moon situation.
As I stated but you ignored, the Moon’s axis is pointed to a fixed position in the sky, at 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
===================================================
I am going to put my foot down on this nonsense.
When something is excluded its excluded. No amount of obfuscation or worries about axis tilt amount to a hill of beans. All those things have explanations consistent with the exclusion.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate and object that you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.
“And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.”
bill, that would be orbiting the object according to ClintR. You should pay attention to co-conspirators in order try to keep the team on the same sophistry page.
“the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.”
Only by the sophistry of the DREMT. bob’s basketball demonstration teaches the correct text book rigid body dynamics which bill, of course, has to dodge.
Ball4 says:
June 5, 2020 at 6:30 PM
“And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.”
bill, that would be orbiting the object according to ClintR. You should pay attention to co-conspirators in order try to keep the team on the same sophistry page.
“the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.”
Only by the sophistry of the DREMT. bob’s basketball demonstration teaches the correct text book rigid body dynamics which bill, of course, has to dodge.
=========================================
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate and object that you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.
bill, that would be orbiting the object according to ClintR. Your propellers are out of synch, again.
I know 3 year olds who can make up better excuses than that.
bill hunter says:
And the Moon does not do that:
“Following perigee, the moon’s rotation can’t keep pace with its orbit, so a slice of the moons back side slips into view along the moon’s east (right) limb; following apogee, the moon’s rotation outpaces its slower orbit, causing a sliver of the moon’s back side to emerge along the west (left) limb.”
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration#longitude
You repeated yourself here:
https://tinyurl.com/y9f8tlkq
So you can continue there.
Very pushy, Svante.
libration isn’t a rotation Svante. Its not even a lunar movement its just the excuse of lunarcentrist lunatic who thinks the universe rotates around the moon.
A rotation is a full 360 turn of the moon, something never observed by mankind. Why? You think you can prove it does?
If it’s such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
And yet it the does not move in the “one way” you described.
Svante, a rotation is a 360 degree turn. We know from the fact that the orbit of the moon elliptical and its orbital plane is tilted we are going to see up to 59% of the moon surface over time. But this is only another illusion of partial rotation, the moon isn’t actually even attempting to revolve to give you those views. One would think after more than 3,000 posts and many of them on that topic you would be smart enough to have absorbed that but obviously not.
If it’s such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd. If you can’t see that either you are stupid or so inculcated you know longer believe your own eyes or your own ability to reason.
“I am going to put my foot down on this nonsense.”
Yes you do, just like the spoiled child that you’re acting like.
Insisting that you’re not tired, and not going to bed!
You guys are insisting that the Moon’s motion is like you want it to be, just like a MGR!
The facts say it isn’t. Oh well.
But you just can’t face reality when it disagrees with your child-like beliefs.
“libration isnt a rotation Svante. Its not even a lunar movement its just the excuse…”
Sure. Inconvenient facts that your model cannot explain, they are just excuses!
Just ignore em!
That’s the TEAM’s motto.
They can’t falsify your model, because your model is not falsifiable.
(See eg Religion).
Nate says:
June 6, 2020 at 11:54 AM
libration isnt a rotation Svante. Its not even a lunar movement its just the excuse
Sure. Inconvenient facts that your model cannot explain, they are just excuses!
Just ignore em!
Thats the TEAMs motto.
They cant falsify your model, because your model is not falsifiable.
(See eg Religion).
==============================
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Fig. 2
Obliquity (of moon’s axis) as a function of spin frequency for an object being DESPUN by tidal friction.
Libration isnt explained by a rotation of the moon Nate. Its explained by the eliptical orbit and the observer changing his angle of view. The moon is traveling at the same orbital rate of turn by traveling faster in the flatter curves of its orbit.
So you need to start over with a correct interpretation of why view changes slightly during an orbit and then realize that this has nothing to do with rotation on an axis. So lets keep it real and lets only talk about 360 degree rotations rather than picking around at irrelevant points.
Fact only is true the axial tilt of the moon is attributable to tidal friction.
Fig. 2
Obliquity (of moons axis) as a function of spin frequency for an object being DESPUN by tidal friction. (parens and all caps my emphasis)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/AJ/0080//0000064.000.html
“If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?”
Easy, yes, relevant to the Moon, No.
I get it.
The TEAM, unfamiliar with real physics, is gravitationally attracted to EASY, SIMPLE, and INTUITIVE models, because these are the only ones they can comprehend.
Unfortunately, nature does not always comply.
Your link is broken.
… bill.
Nate says:
June 7, 2020 at 9:51 AM
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Easy, yes, relevant to the Moon, No.
I get it.
The TEAM, unfamiliar with real physics, is gravitationally attracted to EASY, SIMPLE, and INTUITIVE models, because these are the only ones they can comprehend.
Unfortunately, nature does not always comply.
========================================
And nature often doesn’t comply with science that is believed to be solid. All you are doing is pumping your own rod.
lets try this:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1975AJ…..80…64W
that didn’t work so one more try:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975AJ…..80…64W/abstract
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1975AJ…..80…64W
Can’t get an operational url. Search google on Tidal friction and generalized Cassini’s laws in the solar system william ward
This is the recipe.
1. The TEAM declares X.
2. The TEAM denies any evidence contradicting X.
3. X is proven wrong in numerous ways.
4. The TEAM quietly abandons X.
5. The TEAM declares X doesnt matter.
6. Without X, the TEAM twists themselves into a pretzel to keep on arguing.
Some of the X’s
a. The Moon is moving just like a horse on a MGR.
b. The Moon is moving just like a tether ball.
c. A tether ball will not continue to rotate when its tether is cut.
d. The Moon is orbiting just like a cannon ball fired from a mountain.
e. No torque needed to make a fired cannon ball stay oriented to the Earth.
f. Objects on frictionless bearings on a MGR will stay oriented to the MGR when it is rotated.
a thru f are essentially true.
“even if the spinnable globes on the merry-go-round were to remain oriented in the same direction as the MGR rotates, it doesnt change the fact that the”
Thats DREMT quietly abandoning f.
He abandoned e. a couple of days ago here.
Here is where he abandoned e.
“So to clarify my earlier comment, Tim: ‘The linear momentum acting at right angles to the force of gravity provides a torque about the axis through the barycenter. See the animations for the demonstration of that.’
The torque only needs to be applied about the axis going through the barycenter, not about the cannonballs own axis.”
g. Day/night is a result of a body’s orbit about another body and not from the body’s rotation about its own axis.
I suppose it’s quite flattering having a stalker, in a way.
Cool idea Svante!
Eliminates lots of friction.
Thats why the TEAM prefers their more frictiony experiments.
Then there is always “even if”.
Svante, your “model” is not orbital motion. You have eliminated the gravitational force. In orbital motion, there are two forces acting. The force due to the object’s momentum and the force due to gravity. The path of the object is the vector resultant of the two forces. The momentum (velocity) vector is pushing and the gravitational vector is pulling. The resultant vector steers the object along the circular/elliptical path.
In your model, the floating cup would eventually move outward, due to centrifugal force. There is no “pulling” force.
The globes mounted on the mgr floor have the two forces. The globes are secured to the floor, providing the “pulling” (centripetal) force, and the mgr’s revolving motion provides the momentum. Another suitable model would be a model airplane with the control wires held by someone in the center of its orbit. The model airplane is “pushed” by its propeller, and “pulled” by the control wires.
The problem here is that people cannot understand the simple motions. It is further complicated by the fact that there are several idiots that believe something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
ClintR says:
“the floating cup would eventually move outward, due to centrifugal force”.
Yes, it will help your case.
When it touches the outside it helps the bowl face inward.
I’ll let you have that free of charge.
Just rotate slowly and see what the bowl wants to do.
ClintR
There are only the three forces, the strong force the electro-weak force and the gravity force.
There is no force on the moon due to momentum.
There you go, making up stuff again.
“The force due to the object’s momentum”
Must be like “the force” in Star Wars. May the made-up force be with ClintR’s momentum.
I was going to add that I left one of the forces out.
May the farce be with you.
the water which will slosh and mix under linear acceleration won’t demonstrate the issue in an unbiased manner as the linear acceleration will create a wave.
No sloshing/acceleration required.
Just rotate slowly and see if the bowl wants to face inward.
svante just a linear wind over the water will create the coriolis effect even if you pretend you can start the bowl moving slow enough to not create a wave of some proportions. water moves in all dimensions and gases are even worse.
likewise it seems probable the coriolis effect generated from bearing looseness in a fidget spinner is the reason the outer wing bearings move some. however while i don’t have one i would reason the rotation is far slower than the central bearing which would then lend truth to the moment of inertia issue.
“coriolis effect generated from bearing looseness in a fidget spinner”
See ‘twisting themselves into pretzel”
above.
Nate I noted only a probability. So do the outside bearings on your fidget spinner spin as fast as the central bearing? If not Nate its strongly supporting the unassailable science of the physics around spinning. The outside bearings spinning as fast as the inside bearing would be support for your case. Spinning at half the speed of the inside bearing and you might be splitting the baby. Hardly spinning is no doubt to some imprecision or shakiness of the model, e.g. other motions being introduced in the flicking of the spinner that manifests itself via some minor rotation ala the Coriolis Effect.
Bill,
This is just desperate grasping at straws.
This is basic physics. You guys don’t understand it, or forgot it. You are out of your depth.
So you toss out chaff and red herrings that are quite ridiculous.
OK Nate I will invite you also to show your calculations and the source of torque on the moon that causes it to rotate on its axis.
If you want to prove you are smart do it. either that or run away with your tail between your legs.
bill,
The tidal force is what puts a torque on the Moon. It elongates the mass into an egg shape pointed at the Earth. This pulls the center of gravity away from the center of mass. The Earth’s gravity tugs at the center of gravity and not at the center of mass. If the Moon’s sidereal and orbital angular velocity are mismatched then this causes the tidal bulge to rotate around the Moon. The torque being applied to the Moon is in the direction of the movement of the bulge. Some of the bulge’s movement is dissipated as heat via friction but some it contributes to the Moon’s angular momentum about its own axis as well. Even today the orbital angular velocity of the Moon is slowing down so the tidal force puts a torque on the Moon via the bulge to slow the sidereal rotation as well. The Moon will be forever tidal locked.
The same thing is happening on Earth. The lunar induced tidal bulge on Earth is rotating around the Earth putting a torque on it that is trying to slow Earth’s rotation. In the very distant future the Earth will eventually become tidal locked with the Moon as well. Our days are getting longer.
bdgwx says:
bill,
The tidal force is what puts a torque on the Moon. It elongates the mass into an egg shape pointed at the Earth. This pulls the center of gravity away from the center of mass. The Earths gravity tugs at the center of gravity and not at the center of mass.
===================================
I get that bdgwx. We know thats how the moon stopped rotating independently and instead began rotating exclusively on the gravitational barycenter. The only thing you aren’t getting is what is turning on what in the most common sense manner. Are you in denial of the fact that every single particle in the moon rotates the common barycenter?
====================
====================
bdgwx says:
The Moon will be forever tidal locked.
====================
Hmmmm, did God tell you that too?
and once a wave exists you will now observe the coriolis effect as the water will rotate in the bowl
There is no Coriolis effect to worry about on this scale.
Believe me I tested it in the sink when I was ten years old.
The rotation you get is random.
Nate says: There is no Coriolis effect to worry about on this scale. Believe me I tested it in the sink when I was ten years old.
The rotation you get is random.
========================
Its not a matter of scale Nate. Its a matter of other influences. For example is the drain hose bent, or does the water whirlpooling out in one direction because of a water inflow. You can test this many times and find some variation but the variation is usually peculiar to the design of the system.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-somebody-finally-sett/
Svante speaking.
I found that the slightest stir would determine the direction in my symmetrical sink.
Your source says the same thing:
“The local irregularities of motion are so dominant that the Coriolis effect is not likely to be revealed.”.
bill hunter says:
“Its not a matter of scale”
It works on low pressures every time.
I’m glad we agree that your Coriolis talk was bonkers, and even more glad you looked it up yourself using a reputable source.
P.S. I’m flattered that you mistook me for Nate.
Svante says:
There is no Coriolis effect to worry about on this scale.
Believe me I tested it in the sink when I was ten years old.
The rotation you get is random.
———————–
Hmmmm, did you try rotating the sink during your experiment as a child Svante?
In agreement just above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477097
Svante,
Here’s another demonstration of a rotating object whose constituent pieces clearly still have angular momentum about their own center of mass as they dissociate and fly off from the original body.
https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0
Also, I repeated my earlier experiment where I spun a heavy object around my body and then let it go. This time I did it with a small piece of string that had no significant impact on the object’s center of mass or could transfer a torque to the object when let go. Sure enough…the object continued to spin after letting go of it. I also did this from a height off my deck to give the object even more time to rotate before it hit the ground. There was definitely a correlation with the speed at which I forced the object to orbit and the number of radians it swept out on its own axis before hitting the ground.
Yes, good catch bdgwx. Draw a chalk circle on one of those spinning edge pieces and the chalk circle continues to rotate on its own axis as chalk circle did once per orbit when orbiting the central axis when the LP record was one piece.
Some youngsters would call that LP a giant CD.
Draw a chalk circle on one of those spinning edge pieces and the chalk circle is now able to rotate on its own axis, as chalk circle was not able to when orbiting the central axis when the LP record was one piece.
It’s wrong the chalk circle piece just starts rotating on its own without being forced after breakup.
No DREMT, the rotational inertia in each piece was there when the record is whole and remains in each piece after the LP breaks up. Just like your Fig. 2(b) “rotation” shows.
When the LP is whole, the chalk circle drawn at the outer edge is rotating about the center of the LP, as the LP rotates. The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis.
Then each piece would have no beginning rotational inertia and remain not rotating about each piece’s own axis after the break.
That is not what happens, all pieces rotate about their own axis from the rotational, about their own axis, inertia they had when the record was whole. Just like your figure 2(b) “rotation” shows/ predicts.
Nobody is denying that the LP is rotating, Ball4.
Nobody is denying that the merry-go-round is rotating either.
Right.
Yes there is some rotational inertia thrown off when a piece breaks off a rotating mgr, absolutely! Redo the the moment of inertia calculation for the mgr and you will see it.
Since the moment of inertia is a square distance function if you pull some mass in rotation on the axis increases. Move it out and it decreases. Release a chunk and that rotational axis will translate to the center of new mass. So the new axis will vary its location via the size of the mass broken off for example one of the globes breaking off with a large piece of the mgr deck and the axis is not going to be the axis of the globe.
the video of the LP doesn’t show much angular momentum on most of the pieces with the core of the record moving much faster. The pieces are coming off parallel to a tangent line (direction they were traveling when it blew apart) the pieces pick up a little spin as the cracks migrate from the outer edge of the disk where there is more speed on the disk. Not impressive. The core of the disk is rotating much faster than the average piece.
And of course your heaving something on a string, the string is leading the object to maintain its speed as well as constraining it in a circle which is practically the definition of torque and not dead center mass.
You guys are going through a lot of lousy models when all you have to do is calculate that there is no torque created by the orbit on a moon or free spinning globes on a mgr because in those models 100% of the force is dead center mass. By definition the axis is dead center mass. Come on guys this is high school level physics.
The video shows the same angular momentum about each piece’s own axis before and after dissociation.
If the string was causing a torque on the object then it was acting to torque the object in the reverse direction in which it was rotating both before and after letting the string go. And yet the object continue to rotate in the same manner after release as it was before release.
I’ve already explain how the Earth puts a torque on the Moon. It does via the tidal force and the tidal bulge that is induced on the surface of the Moon. As the bulge moves along the surface of the Moon it drags or torques the Moon in the direction of its movement.
Before each piece dissociates it is not physically possible for it to rotate on its own axis.
DREMT, it isn’t possible for each piece to rotate on its own axis more than once nor less than once during each orbit of the center pin before the record breaks into the rotating on their own axis observed pieces, conserving their previous angular momentum about their own axes.
After breakage into pieces, each piece is enabled to continue to rotate on its opwn axis and translate free of the center pin constraint.
#2
Before each piece dissociates it is not physically possible for it to rotate on its own axis.
DREMT,
And yet those constituent pieces have non-zero angular velocity/momentum about their own axes in an inertial frame just like the whole LP has non-zero angular velocity/momentum about its own axis in an inertial frame.
If you want to claim the LP is rotating then you have no choice but to accept that the constituent parts of it are rotating as well…assuming of course that you’re using a definition for “rotating” that is logically consistent with the opposite “not rotating” definition and which can be quantified objectively via math.
I think the issue here is that in your mind it doesn’t feel like those constituent pieces are rotating about their axes. But physics doesn’t care about your feelings.
If it has angular velocity/momentum about its own axis in an inertial frame then it is rotating. The rule is consistent and can be applied anywhere and in any situation.
“If you want to claim the LP is rotating then you have no choice but to accept that the constituent parts of it are rotating as well”
As I have said many times…they are rotating. About the central pin, and not on their own axes.
Which just as many times DREMT has been told is wrong, refer to DREMT’s rigid body dynamics text Fig. 2(b) “rotation” to understand why DREMT remains wrong & the experimental evidence that shows DREMT is wrong. Sophists like DREMT remain in a state of confusion by their very nature.
Incorrect, as explained.
DREMT,
You’re definition of “rotation” allows for non-zero angular velocity/momentum. That’s fine; even necessary. But you’re definition of “not rotating” also allows for non-zero angular velocity/momentum. That’s logically inconsistent. Surely you see the problem with your definition. No?
No. DREMT does not see the problem with his sophist def. even after DREMT has been shown experimentally that DREMT is wrong. DREMT never will make progress, DREMT will always remain a strong Heyoka warrior.
For the helpfully correct explanation, ref. DREMT’s linked text rigid body dynamics Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
Try reading my previous comments, until you understand.
“the video of the LP doesnt show much angular momentum”
Correct bill, each piece is observed showing nonzero angular momentum due each piece was rotating once per orbit of the center pin before the fractures appear; this is the conservation of angular momentum being observed in the real world from high school level physics.
And, yes, in the case of the ball on string video, you use the definition of torque correctly also showing the ball rotating once on its own axis per orbit of the central axis in steady state like the rectangle in DREMT’s high school physics text 2(b) “rotation”.
“…each piece was rotating once per orbit of the center pin before the fractures appear”
Each piece was rotating about the center pin, and not on its own axis, before the fractures appear.
If so, their angular momentum about the pieces own axes would be nil after breakage and that is observed not to be the case DREMT. They are all rotating about their own axes conserving angular momentum at breakage.
The pieces have angular momentum about the center pin before breakage, and about their own axes after breakage.
DREMT concedes, believes his own eyes, the pieces have angular momentum about their own axes after breakage, thank you.
#2
The pieces have angular momentum about the center pin before breakage, and about their own axes after breakage.
DREMT,
Use polar coordinates. Put your radius r=0 at the center of mass of each piece. Put your angle a=0 pointed straight up. That’s your inertial frame. Watch as the sections of the LP that will later be dissociated have constantly changing angle values. If the whole LP is spinning at 12000 rpm then the each piece prior to dissociation must have an angular velocity of 1256 rads/sec.
The only way I can envision you claiming those pieces were not rotating prior to dissociation is if you permit your definition of “not rotating” to include non-zero values of angular velocity. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The pieces were rotating, about the center pin, and not on their own axes.
Which fails conservation of momentum about pieces own axes. But then DREMT fails at a lot of physics.
#3
The pieces have angular momentum about the center pin before breakage, and about their own axes after breakage.
DREMT said: The pieces have angular momentum about the center pin before breakage
Agreed.
DREMT said: and about their own axes after breakage.
Agreed.
DREMT implies the pieces do not have angular momentum about their own axes before breakage.
First…am I correct that this is your implication?
Second…if so then I disagree. The same math used for your first two points, which I agree with, also confirms that these pieces have angular momentum about their own axes before breakage as well.
The pieces cannot possibly rotate on their own axes, before breakage. Stop the LP rotating. Can any of the pieces rotate on their own axes? No.
Now start the LP rotating. The pieces were unable to rotate on their own axes with the record stopped. So what is happening now it is rotating? The pieces are rotating about the central pin, and not on their own axes. Because it is physically impossible for them to do so, without the LP breaking into bits.
The pieces can possibly rotate on their own axes exactly once per orbit forced to keep same face toward center pin by all being connected in the LP disc. After breakage this rotational momentum of each piece aboput ioots own axis is conserved as it is observed in each piece rotating about its own axis.
If DREMT were correct, the pieces would be predicted not rotate on their own axis after breaking up conserving DREMT’s incorrect no rotation on their own axes zero angular momentum on their own axis. This is not observed, DREMT’s prediction was proven incorrect by experiment.
DREMT said: Can any of the pieces rotate on their own axes? No.
Yes. They are rotating on their own axes because their angular velocity/momentum is non-zero in an inertial frame.
Just because that doesn’t feel right to you doesn’t make it any less true. Physics does not care about your feelings.
DREMT said: Now start the LP rotating. The pieces were unable to rotate on their own axes with the record stopped.
That’s correct. When the LP is stationary the constituent pieces must also be stationary. No part of that LP whether the whole or the constituent pieces has angular velocity/momentum about their own axes.
But when you start the LP rotating about its own axis the constituent pieces are forced to do the same because they are in physical contact with the whole.
DREMT said: Because it is physically impossible for them to do so, without the LP breaking into bits.
Nope. The opposite is true. It is physically impossible for them to not have angular velocity/momentum about their own axes when the LP as a whole has angular velocity/momentum. When the LP dissociates then and only then is it physically possible for the constituent pieces to have angular velocities that evolve independently of the original LP as a whole. But they always start with the angular velocity/momentum they had prior to dissociation. That’s just how the math works out. The math doesn’t care how you feel about it.
#4
The pieces have angular momentum about the center pin before breakage, and about their own axes after breakage.
Wrong, bdgwx. The pieces cannot rotate on their own axes with the record stopped, without breaking the LP apart. Start the LP rotating and the same truth remains. The pieces are rotating about the center pin, and not on their own axes.
This message will be repeated until you stop responding.
I realize that. You’ll continue to post a statement that no one is challenging while simultaneously ignoring the topic that is being challenged. And you’ll no doubt continue to reject the fact that the Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27.3 days because that’s just how you “feel” about it and no amount physics or math is going to take that away from you. I’m not under any illusion that you can be convinced otherwise. My statements are primarily for the lurkers out there who are persuaded by physics and math.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Now start the LP rotating. The pieces were unable to rotate on their own axes with the record stopped. So what is happening now it is rotating? The pieces are rotating about the central pin, and not on their own axes. Because it is physically impossible for them to do so, without the LP breaking into bits.
=====================================
You got it DREMT and bdgwx even said for the earth moon that forever they are not going to break apart. Forever the moon will not rotate around its central axis. So what is this jive from bdgwx about what happens when they break apart?
Thats what non-inertial frames of reference are good for. These passengers in the car are never going to out of the car and until they are the forces bdgwx are applying to them are fictitious.
Feelings do not enter into it, bdgwx. It is just the definition of rotation. The axis of rotation need not go through the body. For a piece of the LP, before breakage, the axis of rotation is the central pin. Not the axis going through the cm of the piece. The piece of LP is rotating about the central pin, and not on its own axis, by definition. All particles making up the piece are moving in concentric circles about the central pin. Thus, that is the relevant axis.
bill, I don’t recall having a discussion about whether the Moon or Earth would break up. I happen to agree that they won’t because neither are anywhere close to their Roche limit, but that was never actually discussed. Are you confusing me with someone else maybe?
That’s wrong DREMT 12:54pm, as in the experimental video it is observed the pieces rotate about their own internal axis after, AND therefore before, the breakup as explained in your rigid body dynamics text Fig. 2(b) “rotation”. The pieces cease rotating about the center pin and begin to translate with that former momentum about the center pin.
It’s ok though to deny the experimental video showing what really happens, that just makes DREMT rigid body dynamics physics credibility approach zero and the humor equally increase. Carry on in denial of experiment, your practice of sophistry is as evident as always DREMT.
Incorrect, as explained.
bdgwx says:
May 26, 2020 at 1:59 PM
bill, I don’t recall having a discussion about whether the Moon or Earth would break up. I happen to agree that they won’t because neither are anywhere close to their Roche limit, but that was never actually discussed. Are you confusing me with someone else maybe?
=============================
you must be getting old like me bdgwx
bdgwx says: at 7:23 this morning
The Moon will be forever tidal locked.
I’m certainly getting old and my memory isn’t what it used to be.
Tidal locking isn’t the same thing as breaking up. Those are different eventualities.
bdgwx says:
May 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM
I’m certainly getting old and my memory isn’t what it used to be.
Tidal locking isn’t the same thing as breaking up. Those are different eventualities.
===============================
While its true tidal locking could end without the earth and moon breaking apart the opposite couldn’t happen. Saying the earth and moon will be forever tidal locked is saying the earth and moon will never break apart. . . .and more.
You’re good bdgwx.
He got me mixed up with Nate.
…and you were delighted. Yes, we saw.
Svante using the water as a bearing isn’t a reasonably good bearing.
For example the earth turns toward the east. I can assure you the oceans move east with the earth.
The Coriolis Effect is not caused by this movement.
The Coriolis effect is caused by a force that is independent of the rotation of the ocean. Thus what you observe to be an apparent lack of rotation is actually the bowl rotating with the plate and other forces causing a gentle flow in opposition to that motion caused by a force with absolutely no connection to the forces applied on the bowl of water by the rotation of the plate.
And here is the take home message. In the absence of that independent force the bowl floating on the water will rotate in time with the plate. So the apparent non-rotation of the floating bowl is caused by a real force not connected with the angular momentum of the plate and everything on it.
To understand this you need to carefully study the Coriolis Effect and the use of non-inertial reference frames.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
So on the merry go round with the globes on frictionless bearings. In the absence of a supplementary force to slow the rotation of the globes, they will rotate with the plate because they lack any force to keep them in place or slow their turn
You are simply convinced that the Coriolis effect is caused by a mysterious resistance to turning with the plate that you think must be a missing moment of inertia lost via the frictionless connection. But your experiment doesn’t establish that in any way shape or form. The fact you believe it does simply serves to falsely fortify your belief system.
Why do you go on about the Coriolis effect?
We just agreed is’s negligible on this scale.
https://tinyurl.com/yd2baro9
When you rephrase your objection, please be succinct.
I did mix you up with Nate since you try to suck up to him constantly.
But your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. The link that says the Coriolis Effect is negligible was referring to 10 years olds trying to confirm it with a bathroom sink and depending upon earth’s spin to generate it. The earth’s spin is only sufficient to produce a scalable effect that ultimately affects oceans and weather systems. Thats a huge effect directing the rotation of hurricanes, weather patterns, and ocean currents.
However, the coriolis effect generically works with all rotating bodies and has its strongest effects with the fastest rotation rates.
Thus your little bowl model if you are only turning the plate at 2RPM will have a much larger effect on your bowls than the earths rotation will. Of course if your reading a reading comprehension were up to the task you would have seen it in the lesson you read.
All right, try it at 1RPM and see if there is any difference.
I rarely disagree with Nate, except the two of you seem to be more pessimistic about the future.
” So the apparent non-rotation of the floating bowl is caused by a real force not connected with the angular momentum of the plate and everything on it.”
See ‘twisting themselves into a pretzel’ upthread.
Bill why are you speculating about other forces when we have a perfectly good and simple explanation? :
Newton’s Laws.
Newton’s First Law: An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by a force.
First Law for rotation: An object with no rotation will continue to have no rotation unless acted on by a torque.
The water in the bowl cannot transfer any torque to the floating bowl (or very little).
Nate says:
The water in the bowl cannot transfer any torque to the floating bowl (or very little).
=================================
Nate that wouldn’t be an either or.
Its very little friction.
Q.E.D.
bill hunter says:
“Svante using the water as a bearing isnt a reasonably good bearing.”
Try it without water if you want to see friction.
It will be just like your welded globes.
Yes and just like every atom on the mgr.
But not the globes with bearings.
Q.E.D.
The globes will catch up. When you have acceleration you are going to see some slippage. Like burning rubber as kid with 400hp to play with. Like a moon being captured in an orbit eventually its on its way toward getting tidal locked. There is no question that changing the direction of something requires a force. For orbits its the force of gravity.
but the energy doesn’t disappear it just moves into another place or it changes its form.
apply a force to a bucket of water and you generate acceleration though all the parts may not accelerate at the same speed, the system is still in an accelerating mode until all the attached parts catch up. When the speed levels everything associated with the system will be moving as it respectively should.
For an orbiting system you don’t have to add energy it brings it along via its momentums combined with the force of gravity. Think of it as overall potential as shared by an object via speed in various directions and rotations, heat, internal activity, weather, ocean currents, gravitational bulging, atomic energy, radiation, etc. . . .the heavens mostly just extract that. All you want to do is put it in some order you and your inculcators dreamt up.
when somebody wants to set a land speed record they don’t run in a circle. One of the big reasons why is they don’t want to end up spinning on their axis. You definitely don’t want your assend passing your frontend. Running in a circular or oval track puts them a little closer to having their assend passing their frontend. You though want to claim they are doing it already probably because you can’t tell your arse from. . . .Aw shucks I probably should give you a reference on this too.
https://www.theawl.com/2016/09/how-to-tell-your-ass-from-your-elbow/
” The globes will catch up. When you have acceleration you are going to see some slippage. ”
Yes. Because there remains a tiny amt of friction.
The point, which you seem to have forgotten, is to model the behavior when there is none.
You have to be able to extrapolate.
Nate says:
May 28, 2020 at 5:22 AM
The globes will catch up. When you have acceleration you are going to see some slippage.
Yes. Because there remains a tiny amt of friction.
The point, which you seem to have forgotten, is to model the behavior when there is none.
You have to be able to extrapolate.
==========================================
I know a lot about extrapolation.
For instance if you model the universe without gravity you also don’t get orbital motion. . . .and as a result you haven’t proven your model.
bill,
If your model of planetary motion ignores gravity then it will be horribly incompatible with observations.
If you your model of planetary motion ignores friction then it will still likely be indistinguishable from observations.
The Moon has near zero friction as it moves and rotates. So ignoring the effects of friction is completely reasonable. What is not reasonable is ignoring the effects of gravity.
” if you model the universe without gravity ”
I thought we were talking about globes on MGR here?
Everyone seemed to think that was useful to understand how to describe rotational motion.
Nate says:
if you model the universe without gravity
I thought we were talking about globes on MGR here?
Everyone seemed to think that was useful to understand how to describe rotational motion.
==================================
FYI since you didn’t know. The friction on the MGR is caused by gravity.
In any case, unless you guys can come up with new excuses, this settles the globes on frictionless bearings on MGR.
They have no need to stay aligned with the MGR, if the MGR is rotated.
Yes/No?
If No, pls find us a torque to do the job.
Nate says:
In any case, unless you guys can come up with new excuses, this settles the globes on frictionless bearings on MGR.
They have no need to stay aligned with the MGR, if the MGR is rotated.
Yes/No?
If No, pls find us a torque to do the job.
=====================
They need torque to not stay aligned as the only forcing on the mgr is via a straight line force off CM of the mgr. The forcing on the individual globes is straight cm unless there is some play in the bearings that will provide uneven friction off CM of the globe system, but we ruled that out theoretically and even if we didn’t rule it out it would not be enough friction to maintain any independent rotation, a fact you already agreed with with the water experiment.
the fidget spinner provides evidence of that spurious rotation.
Nate says:
In any case, unless you guys can come up with new excuses, this settles the globes on frictionless bearings on MGR.
They have no need to stay aligned with the MGR, if the MGR is rotated.
Yes/No?
If No, pls find us a torque to do the job.
===================================
There you go again affirming the consequent.
I modified Svante’s experiment for better performance. My kitchen microwave has a rotating plate (a “carousel”) which rides on three small wheels inside the oven. I removed both the plate and the wheels and set them on a clean, smooth counter top. I then placed a large round casserole dish in the middle, added some water with enough to float a smaller soup dish. With this setup, it’s easy to slowly “spin” the carousel without making waves in the water. Add some electrical tape on one edge of the soup dish to visualize the dish’s rotation.
While carefully rotating the carousel, it was observed that the soup dish did not initially rotate. Continuing the rotation resulted in a slow increase in the speed of the soup dish, the result of the small torque from the viscous effect of the water. When the carousel’s rotation was stopped, the resultant rotation of the soup dish (if any) continued. One might carefully rotate the soup dish and then rotate the carousel back and forth for further insight.
Next, I modified the setup, replacing the casserole dish with the soup dish placed toward the edge of the glass plate, adding water and floating a smaller desert dish within, the result being that there was an offset between the axis of rotation of the carousel and the centers of the soup dish and the dessert dish. While again slowly rotating the carousel, the dessert dish remained nearly stationary, as one would expect from physics and seen with the previous setup.
Yes, kids, you can try this at home, if you find it hard to accept the physics…
…and still the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis.
…because DREMT denies what his own eyes see.
See if Tim will help you out of your confusion, Ball4.
DREMT is merely confining his conclusions to science.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-478142
No bill, DREMT writes something other than what his or your’s (or anyone’s) eyes see in rigid body dynamics text Fig. 2(b) “rotation”. That is how the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis when chalked onto the rectangle; chalk circle points N,W,S,E once per each orbit of O and NOT just N which is in Fig. 2(a) “translation”.
I agree with Tim, DREMT pictures some cosmic merry-go-round to which the moon is attached which doesn’t exist. There is a more powerful view such as text chalk circle Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
It points N,W,S,E because it is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis. Same with the rectangle itself.
If chalk circle is rotating about point O, the chalk circle is then centered on point O.
Clearly the rectangle is NOT centered to rotate about point O, it is rotating about its own axis and orbiting point O just like the chalk circles on it. Again, axis placement confuses DREMT’s words vs. what is shown in text Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
The axis of rotation need not go through the body, as Wikipedia confirms.
I see DREMT is very forgetful, as usual. The rigid body dynamics text proves wiki is sometimes unreliable, like DREMT.
“2. Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
“not on its own axis.”
Has DREMT ever defined what rotating ‘on its own axis’ means?
Whatever it is it needs to be satisfied by Earth, but not by Moon.
Yes, Ball4, there is a situation that applies if the axis intersects the rigid body. Meaning the author is well aware that the axis need not intersect the body.
Correct DREMT, the author points out if an axis intersects the rigid body that axis is then called the axis of rotation. The author is thus well aware wiki is unreliable.
Nate, DREMT doesn’t agree the moon even has a N and S pole to determine its own axis of rotation. DREMT writes the poles have been assigned erroneously meaning along with the equator, the whole moon grid system, and moon’s fixed dividing line (terminator) between the light and dark part of moon. There is no sunrise or sunset anywhere on DREMT’s imagined moon nonrotating on its own axis. This puts DREMT in the pre-Copernicus era of astronomy.
I will ignore your straw men.
Try this:
“2. Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body, the particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
Clearer?
Yes, an axis of rotation intersects the body so wiki is unreliable.
“If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body, the particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
…and if the axis does not intersect the rigid body, there are no such particles.
That’s correct DREMT, you are showing signs of improvement, all the particles in the 2(b) rectangle have nonzero velocity and nonzero acceleration because of its orbital axis through O and “rotation” about an axis intersecting the rectangle.
The axis of rotation through O does not intersect the rectangle or there would be rectangle particles with zero velocity and zero acceleration on that axis.
.
You read what you want to read. There is nothing there to suggest the author means the axis must intersect the body. You just want that to be the case. So, you ignore Wikipedia, and twist the author of this texts words to try to fit your worldview.
And, because you are a troll, you will just keep going, and going, and going…
I’ll go with rigid body dynamics text Fig. 2(b) “rotation”which is confirmed by the experiments in videos bdgwx and I posted because I read what is there in the text. Wiki is notoriously unreliable, name calling helps no one’s case:
“2. Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
Perhaps DREMT can find a proper text that does not have translation issues DREMT prefers to hide behind.
…and going, and going, and going…
Ball4 says:
Ill go with rigid body dynamics text Fig. 2(b)
Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.
Perhaps DREMT can find a proper text that does not have translation issues DREMT prefers to hide behind.
=============================
As I recall Ball4 the Fig. 2(b) illustration shows the rectangle below the access with a rigid arm extending to the axis. I don’t have the link handy but saying: ”If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”, that doesn’t mean the axis has to be in the center of the object. Claiming it does is one of the most basic fallacies of Affirming the Consequent. Look it up. Everybody who talks science should have a basic foundation in logic or you are just talking gibberish.
Very clearly the illustration supports the orbital rotation and the “if” extends the idea to an alternative of having the single rotational hinge in the middle of the object as well as the illustrated one outside of it.
“that doesn’t mean the axis has to be in the center of the object.”
That’s true bill, an object could be rotating about an internal axis not in the geometric center of the object.
The object in Fig. 2(b) “rotation” though is drawn so that the object is rotating once about its own internal axis that does go through its geometric center per the object’s orbit of external axis through O. Just like the moon with equator bulge and N,S poles.
Ball4 says:
that doesnt mean the axis has to be in the center of the object.
Thats true bill, an object could be rotating about an internal axis not in the geometric center of the object.
The object in Fig. 2(b) rotation though is drawn so that the object is rotating once about its own internal axis that does go through its geometric center per the objects orbit of external axis through O. Just like the moon with equator bulge and N,S poles.
=================================
Are we looking at the same Fig. 2(b) figure? Or are you on drugs?
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
clearly Fig. 2(b) clearly it has the rectangle rotating around an external center with all particles in concentric circles.
The text explains such a rotation can also be inside the object and gives conditions for that. (i.e. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration). So spin must be independent of rolling as the moon does. It goes on to equate the rolling motion as mathematically equal to rotation but that what the moon is doing is not rotating around a ‘central’ axis but is rotating around an external axis. Dr. Madhavi is absolutely clear on that. You should not confuse yourself.
The author is clear, bill is not: “If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
The author demonstrates bill is the one confused by curvilinear translation which is Fig. 2(a) “translation” whereas “rotation” about the plate’s own axis is shown in in Fig. 2(b). Again, the author:
“the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation…any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction” meaning the line will maintain point N as illustrated during the orbit.
“the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation” about its own axis meaning any given straight line drawn on the plate will NOT maintain the same direction and will point N,W,E,S as illustrated.
bill, this is beginning rigid body dynamics, you show informed readers you have not yet passed such a college course.
Bill is right, Ball4 is wrong.
Probably yes, in the lunatic reference frame.
From the reference frame of somebody able to read and comprehend the English language, Bill is right about what the text says, and Ball4 is wrong.
DRsEMT wrote:
Did I ever claim that it did? Your chalk circle is firmly attached to the MGR, thus can not rotate freely, which is what the soup dish (should have written soup bowl) or the desert dish can do , since they are not physically connected to the carousel. They can rotate independently, just as the Moon might do if it weren’t tidally locked to the Earth.
You still need to learn some physics, moron.
The globes which are welded in place are also unable to rotate freely, meaning that they are also not rotating on their own axes, as the merry-go-round rotates. The
“They can rotate independently, just as the Moon might do if it weren’t tidally locked to the Earth”
You realize that you just admitted that the moon does not rotate on its own axis?
Actually the chalk circle is not free to rotate on their own axis, they are forced to rotate once on their own axis per orbit of the center axis. Same with the welded globes; it is the 20 unwelded frictionless globes free to rotate on their own axes while orbiting the central axis.
Ball4…you are simply ineducable.
I’ll go with rigid body dynamics text Fig. 2(b) “rotation” which is confirmed by the experiments in videos bdgwx and I posted.
Fig 2(b) supports the Non-Spinners.
Let me get this straight. DREMT originally denied such an experiment should work. When he tried an earlier version with globes, and spinners he calmed that it didnt work. (And that proved something??)
He also claimed that Newtons cannonball stays oriented to the Earth, because thats what orbiting means.
Now he thinks the experiment does work??
And that means without friction, things keep their orientation fixed, even if they are made to orbit.
The only way they keep their orientation to the center is when sufficient torque has been applied.
And he’s ok with that?
nate you need friction or gravity to apply torque. if you have a moment of inertia and not enough friction to cause it to immediately respond to an accelerating torque it isn’t going to instantly respond. but it will sooner or later.
you are just simply married to your analytical tools and won’t look at other women. for example the parameters of orbit dynamics is simply the force of gravity working perpendicular to a momentum. Torque is a force working perpendicular to angular momentum. they are essentially the same thing just in different contexts and you are led astray because you can’t see the similarity of a hammer to a screwdriver. . . .or your own tools; most likely because you don’t use them much.
bdgwx says: ”If your model of planetary motion ignores gravity then it will be horribly incompatible with observations. ”
Like no shit! But I don’t think the implications have dawned on him yet because he can only see it from an inculcated point of view where torque is different than gravity. in the case of the moon gravity is both causing an orbit and forcing the moon to not rotate on its axis. and if you look at it from a frame of reference you have experience with you will get it.
so the take home message is there is no place where you can escape.
“you are just simply married to your analytical tools and wont look at other women.”
True. I much prefer real physics to cosmetically made up physics.
“for example the parameters of orbit dynamics is simply the force of gravity working perpendicular to a momentum.”
Well, sort of.
“Torque is a force working perpendicular to angular momentum”
Sounds good according to rules of made up physics, but in real universe, no.
Nate says:
May 28, 2020 at 6:26 PM
you are just simply married to your analytical tools and wont look at other women.
True. I much prefer real physics to cosmetically made up physics.
==============================================
Nate who is making up physics?
Are you in denial that the moon rotates around the common earth moon barycenter?
B Hunter wrote:
Bill, the Moon ORBITS around that barycenter. Since the Moon is a “free body”, i.e., not attached to the Earth, it’s rotation is defined by it’s angular momentum in inertial space. The Earth-Moon vector based coordinates rotate once an orbit, so can not be used to define the rotation.
And another thing, earlier you wrote:
Torque is a “couple”, that is, two forces acting in opposite direction with a distance between them which cause angular acceleration but (possibly) without any linear acceleration in a moving body. Torque is another vector, which may be parallel to the a body’s instantaneous angular momentum, though that depends on geometry.
The old satellites I worked on had pairs of small rocket motors, called thrusters, which fired in opposite directions and provided the torque necessary to control the satellite’s orientation. Firing a single thruster could also influence the orbital momentum, which might be an undesirable result.
“Bill, the Moon ORBITS around that barycenter. Since the Moon is a “free body”, i.e., not attached to the Earth, it’s rotation is defined by it’s angular momentum in inertial space. The Earth-Moon vector based coordinates rotate once an orbit, so can not be used to define the rotation.”
This is circular logic. The same people that picked me up on it ought to be doing the same to you. You are basically saying, “because we define it such that the moon is rotating on its own axis, the moon is rotating on its own axis”.
But the question is not “is the moon rotating on its own axis from such and such a reference frame that is fixed on the moon’s axis and oriented towards blah blah blah?”
The question is, simply, “is the moon rotating on its own axis?”
…in reality. Just as the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis, in reality, but sophists like to argue that it is rotating on its own axis from such and such a reference frame…it’s not about reference frames. It is about what is happening in reality. Reality is not defined by our perception of it. It just is.
E. Swanson says:
Bill, the Moon ORBITS around that barycenter. Since the Moon is a free body, i.e., not attached to the Earth, its rotation is defined by its angular momentum in inertial space. The Earth-Moon vector based coordinates rotate once an orbit, so can not be used to define the rotation.
===================================
I hear what you are saying but I don’t think it adds anything to the discussion. The moon obviously is not a ”free body” as it is constrained to the earth by gravity. I am not sure what you mean by vector-based coordinates. Are you referring to the wobble brought about by the concept of a barycenter around which both objects rotate?
DRsEMT wrote:
Again, again and again, you’ve offered this question. But, you failed to provide complete information. For example, you don’t define “it’s own axis”. Clearly, when you write “it’s own”, you are referring to some place or location in (or on) the Moon. The moon is nearly a symmetrical sphere, so there’s nothing which is identifiable as “it’s own axis”.
The science of physics and astronomy long ago measured and defined an “axis of rotation” against the distant stars because the Moon is clearly rotating about that axis. Of course, the DRsEMT moron refuses to accept these obvious facts, endlessly repeating his ignorant trolling, wasting everybody’s time.
E. Swanson says:
Again, again and again, youve offered this question. But, you failed to provide complete information. For example, you dont define its own axis. Clearly, when you write its own, you are referring to some place or location in (or on) the Moon. The moon is nearly a symmetrical sphere, so theres nothing which is identifiable as its own axis.
The science of physics and astronomy long ago measured and defined an axis of rotation against the distant stars because the Moon is clearly rotating about that axis. Of course, the DRsEMT moron refuses to accept these obvious facts, endlessly repeating his ignorant trolling, wasting everybodys time.
==================================
Swanson, DREMT did define ”it’s own axis”. You simply didn’t read the link he provided. https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
this defines the moons motion as having no fixed axis though it doesn’t mention the moon it describes the moon’s motion of rolling around the earth via a friction as a general plane motion lacking a fixed axis.
then in the second paragraph you team up physics and astronomy. Physics wasn’t involved in what astronomers extrapolated from physics. Likewise what Professor Madhavi has done is extrapolate physics to Mechanical engineering. Two different extrapolations upon which the definition of an axis depends and results in two different answers.
So the only ignorance around here is yours and Nates, and Svante, and Ball4 and bdgwx and goodness knows who else now perhaps departed. And it is probably all because none of you did your homework. Unfortunately I am not real happy with the homework assignment either as for some reason Madhavi’s computations don’t show up in my pdf reader making it a little harder to comprehend.
But the concept is simple. Tim laid it out as choices A,B, and C. Clearly Tim favors one choice but its not clear to me why other than I am aware that Tim has been heavily inculcated, which clearly is good when the inculcation is limited to established science. But the fact remains we all kind of develop cultish beliefs about what isn’t established. Few folks extrapolate on their own, as there is great risks in open end extrapolations.
So instead they sort of adopt a cultish approach to the matter and simply accept authority as their admission badge to the club.
I get to look at this from the hazardous situation of not being inculcated but being in possession of a love of analysis and an actual profession of being a skeptic.
I sort of ran into this topic somewhat a few years ago in analytical thinking on and attempted diagrams of a barycenter. I think I have this right a first order barycenter is actually the center of gravity of a celestial body. A second order is the common center of gravity between two objects. Not sure though if that second one is the first or not though. But so far its pretty easy. Then it moves to higher orders with variables of that order being irregularities of shapes and/or more objects. It quickly gets overwhelming and I found myself getting dizzy and dropped the topic other than maintaining the concept of complex shaped trajectories in space that I imagine look somewhat like snowflakes except they are 4 dimensional.
I read here where somebody is trying to model what is called 4th order Gravity gradient torque of spacecraft orbiting asteroids.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.4127.pdf#:~:text=The%20gravity%20gradient%20torque%20is%20the%20main%20perturbation%20of%20the%20attitude%20motion.&text=The%20gravity%20gradient%20torque%20of%20spacecraft%20about%20non%2Dspherical%20bodies,)%20and%20Hughes%20(1986).
Interesting stuff. Looks like a good homework assignment to complete before spending several billion dollars on an exploratory mission.
Nate says:
True. I much prefer real physics to cosmetically made up physics.
================================
Actually that’s not true. If it were true you would not be in here trying to put lipstick on a pig.
I suppose it’s quite flattering having a stalker, in a way…
“The force due to the objects momentum and the force due to gravity. The path of the object is the vector resultant of the two forces.”
Very familiar made-up physics, ClintR.
Who was it that confused momentum and force just like this?
DREMT or JD or both?
F = dp/dt (See Newton’s Second Law.)
Nate, have you taken the “idiot test” yet?
There is such a thing as a “de facto” idiot.
The test I proposed was for you ClintR.
Your “test” revealed you do not understand orbital motion. Hopefully you can learn from your “test”.
nate’s argument has devolved down to the grammar level ad homs are no doubt next on the menu.
“grammar level”?
Bill, you agree that momentum can be added to force?
Hint: they have different units.
Nate says:
grammar level?
Bill, you agree that momentum can be added to force?
Hint: they have different units.
===========================
So now you are grammar checking a strawman?
Yes Bill, Nate is in a deep hole and continues to dig even deeper.
We can add him to the list of idiots, now totaling about half-a-dozen..
“F = dp/dt (See Newtons Second Law.)”
The F is the gravity force.
There is only one force, dimwit/JD.
Keep digging, idiot.
“ad homs are no doubt next on the menu”
Yep.
“F = dp/dt (See Newtons Second Law.)”
Actually, Newton’s 2nd Law should be
ΣF = dp/dt
The NET force on an object is related to the change in momentum of an object.
For an orbiting moon, there is one force due to gravity, so
ΣF = F(gravity)
This single force results in a change in momentum (causing the moon to turn (and speed up/slow down if it is an an elliptical orbit). There is no “force due to the object’s momentum”.
^^ that should be a capital Sigma in that equation. Like (hopefully) ∑F = dp/dt or ΣF = dp/dt.
“causing the moon to turn”
Thank you for your support, Tim..
Tim Folkerts, you appear to be very confused about orbital motion. If Moon only has the force due to gravity acting on it, it would quickly smash into Earth.
See if you can learn that simple fact. People that refuse to learn are idiots.
“Tim Folkerts, you appear to be very confused about orbital motion. If Moon only has the force due to gravity acting on it, it would quickly smash into Earth.”
Since there is only one force on the moon, then it will always accelerate toward the earth. Apparently you think this means the moon must fall and hit the earth. Not so.
Newton himself came up with the thought experiment of a cannon ball fired at various speeds from a tall mountain. Study and contemplate!
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/images/newtmtn.gif
What other force is acting on the Moon?
I pose that question to the leader of the moon-calf corral.
Tim Folkerts, unless the cannonball has enough momentum, it will crash into Earth, as would the Moon.
Obviously you are an idiot.
“Tim Folkerts, unless the cannonball has enough momentum, it will crash into Earth, as would the Moon.”
Yes! But momentum (kg*m/s) is not force (kg*m/s^2). These are two different beasts entirely.
There is a single force on the moon — a force from gravity:
F = G m(moon) * m(earth) / r^2
If you think there is a “force from momentum” then what is the equation for this force?
Are you trying to deny you saw it above?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476918
“If Moon only has the force due to gravity acting on it, it would quickly smash into Earth.”
Ha ha ha. Rookie freshman physics error.
See Newtons cannonball not crashing.
Nate, you’re an idiot.
If a cannonball has enough momentum, it will go into orbit around Earth. That momentum corresponds to a force by Newton’s 2nd Law. This has been explained to you before, but you can’t learn.
That’s why you’re an idiot.
Hmmm…two Newton cannonballs are launched with the same momentum. One falls to earth, the other continues in earth orbit. Why does that happen ClintR?
“If a cannonball has enough momentum…”
“launched with the same momentum”
“Same momentum” may not be “enough momentum”, based on other factors.
But, I don’t expect idiots to understand. It involves physics.
Momentum was enough for one cannonball ClintR, why wasn’t the same momentum enough for the other Newton cannonball that fell back to earth.
Pretty sure ClintR doesn’t know why but I could be surprised.
“That momentum corresponds to a force by Newtons 2nd Law. This has been explained to you before, but you cant learn.”
Momentum is not force. Nor does it ‘correspond to’ a force. It cannot be added to force.
There is no resultant (which means vector sum) of perpendicular momentum vector and force vector.
I dont know why you think doubling down on ignorance helps you. But that is a classic JD move.
A force can cause an acceleration, F= ma, Newton’s 2nd Law (N2L)
An acceleration means a change in momentum, p = mv. Thus N2L can also be written, F = dp/dt.
But just as acceleration is not a force, dp/dt is not a force. They are changes in motion CAUSED by a force.
In our problem, the only actual force is gravity, pointing to the center of the planet.
Therefore dp/dt caused by gravity is a vector pointed toward the planet.
The force of gravity on the cannonnball is thru its center of mass and therefore cannot provide torque on the cannonball.
The resulting dp/dt of the cannonballs CM toward the planet causes the cannonball to travel on a circular path around the planet.
With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.
Nate says:
With no torque on it, the cannonball’s orientation remains FIXED to the stars.
=========================
No its not going to be fixed to the stars Nate. Thats a denial of applied physics.
I deny that. Citation please.
Svante you are just living in a world of imaginary physics. If you start exploring outside you will find a real world.
How about a list of celestial bodies that maintain a fixed view of the stars? Seems to me you are on the sort of hunt like a hunt for extra terrestrials, except it might be more likely you will find ET than a body fixed to the stars.
‘No its not going to be fixed to the stars Nate. ‘
More declarations without evidence from Bill.
Pls show us how gravity applies torque to a uniform cannonball, Bill.
Nate says:
May 28, 2020 at 7:19 AM
No its not going to be fixed to the stars Nate.
More declarations without evidence from Bill.
Pls show us how gravity applies torque to a uniform cannonball, Bill.
================================
There is no evidence of any such thing Nate. Uniform cannonball is simply a concept conceived of without the presence of gravity and orbits and everything else associated with gravity. What you are trying to do might be a handy control reference tool for some purposes but for most purposes having your assend pass your frontend isn’t what one might call control of any sort.
Thanks Bill, now I get it.
DREMT has a precision molded canon ball with a slight imperfection to make it rotate on its axis in perfect sync with its orbit.
Why do I get dragged into everything?
“Uniform cannonball is simply a concept conceived of without the presence of gravity and orbits and everything else associated with gravity.”
Well Bill, whether its a concept or not, your declaration was about the cannonball.
“With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.
=========================
No its not going to be fixed to the stars Nate.”
So make up your mind about the simpler cannonball.
If we can’t make sense of that, there is no hope of the more complicated planets
Nate says:
May 28, 2020 at 4:35 PM
Uniform cannonball is simply a concept conceived of without the presence of gravity and orbits and everything else associated with gravity.
Well Bill, whether its a concept or not, your declaration was about the cannonball.
With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.
=========================
No its not going to be fixed to the stars Nate.
So make up your mind about the simpler cannonball.
If we cant make sense of that, there is no hope of the more complicated planets
bill hunter says:
May 28, 2020 at 9:50 PM
Nate says:
May 28, 2020 at 4:35 PM
Uniform cannonball is simply a concept conceived of without the presence of gravity and orbits and everything else associated with gravity.
Well Bill, whether its a concept or not, your declaration was about the cannonball.
With no torque on it, the cannonballs orientation remains FIXED to the stars.
=========================
No its not going to be fixed to the stars Nate.
So make up your mind about the simpler cannonball.
If we cant make sense of that, there is no hope of the more complicated planets.
======================================
Nate, simple. Excuse my choice of words as I will be mostly using commonly understood logical words rather than the jargon of physicists with their heads in the clouds, so some interpretation may be necessary.
The cannonball would be fired from a cannon at a top of a mountain with the correct muzzle velocity for a perfect orbit and point blank elevation. Since cannons have to provide tolerances for the cannonball to minimize friction in the barrel the ball upon the ignition of gunpowder would roll down the barrel. And like the bowls with low coefficients of friction would both experience a great deal of slippage and a general plane motion of fig. 3(a) of the dynamics of rigid bodies.
”Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion. ”
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
this general plane motion (rolling) which lacks a fixed axis of fig. 2 illustrations is not a rotation. the cannonball will then immediately begin to accelerate towards the ground upon exiting the muzzle. Thus since it was fired at the correct muzzle velocity the net of its momentum and the acceleration of gravity will cause the cannonball to instantaneously adopt a rotation around the common earth/moon barycenter.
Thus the cannonball will not remain fixed to the stars.
What happens subsequently is the general plane motion (rolling) will continue for some time and due to the center of the gravity of the cannonball being toward earth in relationship to center of mass a deceleration force on the rolling will cause it to slow to adopt a fixed position relative to the line of force from the center of gravity of the earth. Virtually the radius line extending from the barycenter axis.
So I suppose that’s not satisfactory to your beclouded view of the situation and will want me to imagine an unworldly cannon barrel with zero friction (which folks have been trying to do from the start to bring the real world into your unreal world).
As we travel through the starry world of physicists with their heads in the clouds, the cannonball now mysteriously lacking an friction from the barrel will come out of the barrel with zero rolling motion. It will instantaneously experience a gravitational acceleration that will begin the rotation of the orbit. As to the orientation of the cannonball it will not remain fixed to the stars as the accelerating forces of gravity will cause it to roll over in a general plane motion (galaxy cloud relative viewpoint) and it will not remain fixed to the stars either.
So we have two motions from two viewpoints that are mutually exclusive. A real world view of a real cannonball coming out of a barrel with a general plane motion and a starry view of an unreal cannonball coming out of the barrel with no general plane motion and instantaneously adopting a plane motion due to gravity Which view is reality? Are both views a deception? Does it matter?
Well it does matter to the question regarding whether the cannonball will exit the barrel and remain fixed to the stars. It won’t remain fixed to the stars, not for an instant.
Is that enough evidence to convince you Nate?
“ball upon the ignition of gunpowder would roll down the barrel”.
Good one bill, that could do the trick.
“Thus since it was fired at the correct muzzle velocity the net of its momentum and the acceleration of gravity will cause the cannonball to instantaneously adopt a rotation around the common earth/moon barycenter.”
From “rolling down the barrel”m by some luck it is just the right angular velocity to have it match its orbit around the Earth.
Very creative, Bill, but it will not pass the auditor credibility test.
^^ and by “turn” I mean “change its heading” or “follow a curved path rather than a straight path”. This is a completely separate issue from “turn on its axis”.
I wanted to clarify lest someone get confused.
Again, thank you for your support, Tim.
Yep … someone got confused even AFTER the clarification!
No confusion here, Tim.
“thank you for your support, Tim.”
DREMT needs to hold onto whatever small victories he can get, even if transient.
Yes thank you for your support Tim, no confusion here.
“Day/night is a result of a body’s orbit about another body and not from the body’s rotation about its own axis.”
Straw-man alert.
That argument comes from ClintR.
ClintR May 22, 2020 at 11:49 AM: If the lunar astronauts saw stars moving, it was due to the fact that Moon is orbiting. Same with daytime and nighttime.
Do you genuinely not understand what is meant by that?
He is not saying, for example, that on Earth day and night is a result of the orbit around the sun.
Have you not grasped that we define “orbital motion without axial rotation” differently to the way you do?
What do you mean we, white man?
The “Non-Spinners”.
Yes, you make up your own definitions, good luck with that as a life skill.
The question is, which definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is correct?
How come the moon keeps spinning and the axis it is spinning on keeps the same orientation?
Why does the Earth’s rotational axis keep the same orientation?
Same answer as the question I asked you.
One of Newtons laws
bobdroege says:
May 25, 2020 at 1:10 PM
Yes, you make up your own definitions, good luck with that as a life skill.
=====================================
indeed many people realize that to keep their jobs they must be sycophants. the cure for that is easy. . . .simply work for some who doesn’t demand sycophancy as a condition for employment
The only real value of this moon discussion is that it provides insights into how science should be done.
The goal of science is to accurately predict the behavior of the universe using rules that apply to a wide range of situations and are as simple as possible.
There are three proposed rules. Let me summarize (and feel free to add your own additional rule if none of these suit you).
For a “moon” orbiting a “planet” …
A) an “orbit” means a path around a planet and an orientation defined by the direction forward along this path. A non-rotating moon follows this orbit and maintains this orientation relative to the forward motion. (like a train car on a track)
B) an “orbit” means a path around a planet and an orientation defined by the direction from the moon to the planet. A non-rotating moon follows this orbit and maintains this orientation relative to the planet. (like a ball on a string)
C) an “orbit” means a path around a planet. Period. A non-rotating moon follows this orbit and maintains its orientation relative to the ‘fixed stars.
All of these can adequately describe a tidally locked moon in a circular orbit. (A & B call this moon “non-rotating” and C call this moon “rotating at with the same period as the orbit”.) All predict identical motion. Its a tie at the moment. Someone might have a sentimental favorite or an intuitive favorite, but the universe has no favorite.
What is a scientist to do! Why, let’s see what happens when we apply our rules in a different situation. The correct rule should STILL apply.
For a tie-breaker, consider a non-circular orbit. Now all three give different answer for how the moon will behave. (Others are free to propose other tie-breakers.) The universe will help us sort out which is correct! Opinions or louder shouting cannot determine the correct rule.
For a concrete example, consider a moon at perihelion that orbits with the same face always (mostly) facing the planet. At the north pole, paint a line for the x-axis facing forward along the orbit, and a line for the y axis pointing straight toward the planet.
Now look 1/4 of the distance around the orbit (where the semi-minor axis touches the orbit). The three rules give different predictions.
A) The x-axis will still be pointing FORWARD along the direction of the orbit (and the y-axis will be pointing toward the center of the ellipse).
B) the x axis will be INSIDE the orbit (and the y-axis will be pointing back toward the planet).
C) the x-axis will be pointing OUTSIDE the orbit (and the y-axis will be pointing head of the center of the ellipse).
The universe decides which rule is right by deciding which one of these rules accurately predicts the motion (or possibly ALL THREE are wrong).
Unless you are confident you can predict which direction the moon will face here, you are not confident which rule is correct. Additionally, your method of predicting the orientation of the moon must ALSO be compatible with general motions.
Only one of these is correct. Only one of these is compatible with general rules (forces, torques, conservation of energy, conversation of angular momentum, etc) the describe motion.
Your “definitions” are all messed up, idiot.
This is typical idiot behavior. Tim is shown to be wrong, so he starts a seemingly endless dissertation for the purpose of confusing the other idiots.
The “chalk circle” is not rotating about its axis. Period.
Moon has TWO forces acting on it, not one. Period.
Please enlighten us with *your* definition of “a non-rotating moon”.
(And while you are at it, define your “two forces”. They must have an equation and must have dimensions of [mass]*[length]/[time^2], ie newtons in metric units.)
Look outside tonight to get enlightened. Moon will be “non-rotating” for you.
I mentioned orbital motion here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476909
Nonrotating on its own axis means the moon cg would only be translating ClintR thus showing us all faces during its earth orbit like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy and Fig. 2(a) “translation”.
Thus if you see the same moon face after moonrise as yesterday, last week, last month, last year the moon is still both translating and rotating to keep that face pointed at us like Fig. 2(b) “rotation” and DREMT’s chalk circle rotating on its own axis and translating pointing at the center of the merry-go-round.
You’re like a child.
Clint says: “Look outside tonight to get enlightened. Moon will be “non-rotating” for you.”
Stand at the center of a merry-go round to get enlightened. The merry-go-round will be “non-rotating” for you. By your exact criterion, the merry-go-round is “non-rotating”.
And actually, because of the moon’s elliptical orbit, what you will *actually* see is the moon ‘rocking’ — rotating slightly forward for ~ 2 weeks and then rotating slightly back for ~ 2 weeks. There is no simply way to explain this in your worldview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC7odtQHoPc
Ball4 says: “Nonrotating on its own axis means the moon cg would only be translating ”
To be fair, the meaning of “non-rotating” is the entire point. Different people are trying to champion different definitions. Only the definition used by me and you and every other scientist in the world is self-consistent.
ball4…”the moon is still both translating and rotating to keep that face pointed at us…”
Not really rotating, but turning. It is Earth’s gravitational force acting on the Moon to turn it away from its linear, tangential path. However, gravity turns the Moon equally, with a radial line from near face to far face, which includes the axis, turning radially to the Earth. That means the near face can never rotate around the axis since those points are orbiting in concentric paths.
tim…”because of the moons elliptical orbit, what you will *actually* see is the moon rocking rotating slightly forward for ~ 2 weeks and then rotating slightly back for ~ 2 weeks”.
That libration is an illusion. There are no rotational torques to turn the Earth back and forth as you describe.
In an ellipse, the force of gravity is aimed along a line bisecting both line from the body to either focal point. The Earth is at one focal point and as the Moon approaches that end of the ellipse, it acts more like a circular orbit. The only difference at the other end of the ellipse is that a radial line from the Moon is not pointed at the Earth and that the force of gravity is a sine or cosine element rather than the direct gravitational force.
“The merry-go-round will be “non-rotating” for you. By your exact criterion, the merry-go-round is “non-rotating”.”
Well, no Tim. The merry-go-round is rotating. The chalk circle drawn at the edge of it is not rotating on its own axis, though.
Wrong Tim, a merry-go-round is rotating about its axis. You still can’t get the basic definitions correct. That’s an ongoing trait with idiots.
The “chalk circle” is not rotating about its axis. Period.
Moon has TWO forces acting on it, not one. Period.
Gordon: “Not really rotating, but turning.”
Turning is rotating on its own axis Gordon. Using Gordon term:
Nonturning (Gordon term) on its own axis means the moon cg would only be translating ClintR thus showing us all faces during its earth orbit like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy and Fig. 2(a) “translation”.
Thus if you see the same moon face after moonrise as yesterday, last week, last month, last year the moon is still both translating and turning on its own axis (Gordon term) to keep that face pointed at us like Fig. 2(b) “turnation” (Gordon term) and DREMT’s chalk circle turning (Gordon term) once on its own axis and translating pointing at the center of the merry-go-round.
Kids these days.
LOL!
ClintR
Sorry you are quite wrong and lacking in real physics. Tim Folkerts is much more knowledgeable on physics than you can accept. I like when he comes in to advance some physics.
You are a Contrarian like the others. You really don’t know what you are talking about. You got your information from some contrarian blog and think you are expert.
Here I will help educate you since you don’t accept Tim Folkert or Nate’s (who I believe studied college physics) version.
Here is a Online College course on Gravitation given during Covid
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/13-4-satellite-orbits-and-energy
The reality is you are just plain wrong and blowing smoke. The other two know exactly what they are saying and are correct.
From actual physics: Please read and either correct your error or continue being a contrarian (disagree just to disagree).
“Consider a satellite of mass m in a circular orbit about Earth at distance r from the center of Earth (Figure 13.12). It has centripetal acceleration directed toward the center of Earth. Earths gravity is the only force acting, so Newtons second law gives”
I agree on Tim Folkerts, it’s a privilege to have him here.
Cringe.
At least Svante is into teen idol worship. That’s something he knows about.
That way he can leave the science to the adults.
☺️
The brat was struggling so granddad is back to help.
Seems like the “Non-Spinner” list has been increasing in numbers regardless.
Incorrect DREMT, the “nonspinner” list is substantially fixed to include all those existing in the field before Copernicus. And some commenters sporting one less arm that insist a rotating airplane propeller only appears to rotate.
ScottR was the latest addition to the list. We are at 11 commenters now.
The number of those in the field before Copernicus have increased non-substantially adding 11 commenters now by DREMT’s count.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Norman, your very first sentence was wrong. Then, you went downhill from there.
You have no facts to back up your biased opinions. Your opinions are more important to you than truth. That makes you an idiot.
You can not understand your own source. In Figure 13.12, there are 2 vectors clearly shown. One force is due to gravity, the other force is represented by “velocity”, which corresponds to “momentum”, which corresponds to “force”. To find the resultant of vectors, the units must be consistent, so the velocity vector gets converted to a momentum vector, where the first differential results in a force, F = dp/dt.
Orbital motion requires two forces. If only gravity were present, Moon would accelerate to Earth. You are an idiot to believe otherwise.
I can’t teach physics to an idiot.
The brat was struggling so granddad is back to help.
ClintR
As hostile and arrogant you are I will maintain the Spock.
Velocity is NOT a force. Do you know what a force is? I don’t think so.
Read up on Newton. Your arrogance and ignorance are the hall-mark of a Contrarian. I wish you had enough knowledge to realize you comments are very ignorant. You call people “idiot” freely but you don’t even understand what they say!
Here is a simple update for you. Look at Newton’s first law of motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
“First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant
velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]”
Velocity is NOT a force! It will not become a force. Gravity is the only force acting on the Moon, it is changing the velocity of the Moon.
No one can teach you physics even though I linked you to a college level course in the topic. You are not able to learn. Typical of Contrarians.
You have already been shown why the Moon will not accelerate into the Earth acted on only by Gravity. Newton also knew this. You ignore reality and real physics.
You are unteachable and unwilling to learn. A true Contrarian. I realize that on blogs it is not necessary at all to convince you of anything. You can believe whatever you want.
The reason I post against the Contrarians (like you and Gordon Robertson) is because there may be actual people coming on blogs interested in Climate Science and looking for Truth. They get confused by nonsense and false physics from Contrarians like you and the others. It is important to not let your invalid posts go unchallenged. As long as a contrarian posts, I will supply the real science as to allow others to learn the truth and not follow the cult mind of a contrarian.
You are still wrong. Calling me an “idiot” does not make your claims valid at all. Read actual physics.
The Moon has Kinetic Energy (K.E. = mv^2) stored energy is NOT a force!
Maybe read this about real science and how words are used in science. In the Contrarian world you choose what words mean. In science the definitions are rigid.
https://www.le.ac.uk/se/centres/sci/selfstudy/egy5.htm
(This is why I don’t like to help idiots.)
Norman, here are my words: “You can not understand your own source. In Figure 13.12, there are 2 vectors clearly shown. One force is due to gravity, the other force is represented by “velocity”, which corresponds to “momentum”, which corresponds to “force”. To find the resultant of vectors, the units must be consistent, so the velocity vector gets converted to a momentum vector, where the first differential results in a force, F = dp/dt.”
That is not saying that “velocity” is a “force”. You are trying to twist my words. They are both vectors.
Again, to find the resultant of two vectors, the vectors must have the same units. A velocity vector is converted to a momentum vector by multiplying by the mass. Then, a momentum vector is converted to a force vector by taking the first derivative.
And yet again, orbital motion requires TWO forces.
If your response makes any of the same mistakes, or includes even one falsehood, I will not respond.
ClintR
It would actually be a blessing if you did quit posting your made up physics. I gave you valid physics. There is only one force acting on the Moon and it is gravity. That is NOT a falsehood, it is correct physics. The energy of the Moon does not change its motion. If you remove the Earth the Moon moves in a straight ling with a given velocity. It does not change. The velocity is NOT changing any direction. The gravity is what is altering the course of the Moon as in Newton’s first law of Motion. The motion is NOT a force at all. A body in motion will continue to move in the same direction unless acted upon by a force. The body in motion is not a force.
Can you find any source of valid physics for you contrarian view. I know you can’t. Contrarians just make up their own versions, will not accept actual textbook versions (like Gordon Robertson). A contrarian, by your nature, will not supply any valid support for their false and misleading physics. They just post whatever they want as long as it goes against validated experimental/observational mathematically described physics. That is the most prevalent aspect of all the contrarians I have encountered. You are not the first and I am sure not the last. The behavior of a contrarian is always the same. Make up ideas, say the valid ideas are wrong, and never attempt to support the made up ideas with anything (like equations, observations, or experimental evidence).
I also know a contrarian is not able to change with evidence. They just reject it when it is given.
“If your response makes any of the same mistakes, or includes even one falsehood, I will not respond.”
Norman says:
The Moon has Kinetic Energy (K.E. = mv^2) stored energy is NOT a force!
==================================
Yet you go forward hubristicly and make a far worse identity error than Clint.
The kinetic energy of the moon is potentially a force on something else not a force on itself.
The rotational energy of the moon around the common earth/moon barycenter is possibly a potential source of rotational energy for spin on the moon’s axis should the forever not be forever. Though some disagree such as Nicola Tesla.
And your defense? An appeal to authority, which of course makes you a sycophant as well. A sycophant who can’t see the real issue. Sycophancy is a epidemic in the science community where secret decoder rings are used to massage egos and sell the idea of superiority. And all the while we wonder, like idiots, how this can spin out of control for entire nations.
–bobdroege says:
May 25, 2020 at 1:23 PM
How come the moon keeps spinning and the axis it is spinning on keeps the same orientation?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
May 25, 2020 at 1:31 PM
Why does the Earth’s rotational axis keep the same orientation?–
I have not had enough coffee.
A new cup.
The keep(s) the same orientation, have to do relatively short time periods, like say, less than 1000 years?
And is the orientation in regards to our Sun?
I think why doesn’t the Earth’s rotational axis keep the same orientation?
Is interesting question.
As would: “Does the Earth’s rotational axis keep the same orientation in relation to “something” ?”
The lunar axis and it’s state of apparent persistence in terms of orientation to the sun, is interesting matter regarding the mineability of lunar water.
Which some could say, I should probably be less interested in.
But anyways, one could ask why does the lunar axis appear have it’s state of apparent persistence regarding orientation to the Sun, in terms of hundreds millions of year. And Mars and Earth doesn’t.
Some might blame Mars wanderings due it not having our Moon.
I blame the lack of Mars tectonic activity due to the lack of our Moon. As likewise, I blame Venus failure to have plate tectonic, due to a Moon shortage.
Being simplistic, I imagine that the Moon being tidal locked with Earth has something to do the Moon’s apparent persistence in terms of orientation to the sun. But I am open to any other reasons, and that the moon persistence in orientation the sun is less stable than what is supposed.
Yes, there would have been more frequent devastating climate change without the Moon:
https://www.space.com/12464-earth-moon-unique-solar-system-universe.html
gbaikie…”I blame the lack of Mars tectonic activity due to the lack of our Moon”.
That’s a good alternative theory to the current paradigm where tectonic activity is blamed on plates sliding under each other. It makes far more sense that tidal forces from the Moon cause tectonic activity.
SAMURAI
A week ago you wrote:
” There is a bizarre North Atlantic Cold Blob (my name for it) that has been developing since August 2019 which continues to grow and get colder. Its now well over 5 million KM^2 with some large sections showing SST anomalies exceeding -5C… ”
together with this picture below:
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2020/anomnight.5.18.2020.gif
*
Here are two graphs showing HadISST1 anomaly plots of that region (30N-80W till 50N-20W):
1. Comparison with HadISST1 Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OSMgqD7ZcXBr6ql0dhQf0rHW4_unY4_/view
2. Comparison with UAH6.0 2.5 degree grid data over that region
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M0-kgkX6-bhAKkOBWSqCHF9gW2w_wAkY/view
Nowhere is what you claim visible. You are still pretty good in Cooling Alarmism, aren’t you?
Btw: here is a UAH trend map for 1978-2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG
There you see the North Atlantic Cold Blob in the LT, as I know it since years. It gets each year lighter and lighter in colour, smaller and smaller in size.
If you think I did it wrong: do it yourself!
J.-P. D.
Sources
– HadISST1
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
– UAH6.0 LT grid:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
This ClintR is an arrogant, impolite, subcutaneously aggressive guy.
Who insults here, above all behind a nickname, everybody having a different meaning by naming her/him “idiot” all the time proves only one thing: that he is an ignorant boaster and a coward.
What we lack here is a real moderator.
J.-P. Dehottay
Are your chickens coming home to roost, Bindidon?
binny…”What we lack here is a real moderator”.
You mean a mindless dictator like over at realclimate or skepticalscience? The leader of the latter has even worn a Nazi suit. It may be photoshopped but the owner of the site allowed them to remain at SkS where the photo was found.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/skepticalscience-goes-godwin-nazi-or-something/
I think Roy has done a great job of moderating. It’s out of respect for Roy that I keep my comments toned down and refrain from saying what I really think about alarmists.
Robertson
Don’t try to divert here as usual.
You perfectly know what I mean: that impolite people like you and a few others get firmly pleased to either stop insulting or leave.
No educated person looking at the mix of trash, ignorance and arrogance in your boasting ‘comment’s would ever expect a moderator to drop you out of a blog just because you write nonsense all the time!
J.-P. D.
You realize how regularly insulting you are, right?
Pseudomod
You deliberately ignore the fact that I do not insult Robertson in the same way he does insult me.
I have often enough explained that when one gets insulted ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ all the times, a moment comes where you can’t avoid insulting BACK.
Do not try to manipulate, Pseudomod. That is hopeless.
J.-P. D.
Not just to Gordon…
tim…”If you think there is a force from momentum then what is the equation for this force?”
Ask yourself….self…what force was required to give the Moon its momentum? Then you’ll know what force would be required to stop its momentum over a period of time. So, take that force, which would act in the opposite direction to the momentum, and insert an equal and opposite force vector that would oppose that force.
You could call that a pseudo-force although it does represent what momentum would mean as a force. If the Moon was to crash into something the size of the Earth, it would act like a considerable force. The Earth would oppose it with enough force to stop it’s momentum should the Moon come to rest, embedded in the Earth.
That’s unlikely since it would like form an elastic collision where both would bounce off each other.
“Ask yourself….self…what force was required to give the Moon its momentum?”
That force acted ~ 4.5 billion years ago. It has not acted since.
“You could call that a pseudo-force ”
Actually, the term ‘pseudo force’ is already used in physics. For example, the ‘Coriolis force’ and ‘centirufgal force’ are pseudo forces (also called ‘fictitious forces’) that only exists within the rotating frame of reference. From an intertial reference frame, these forces do not exist.
“If the Moon was to crash into something the size of the Earth, it would act like a considerable force. The Earth would oppose it with enough force to stop it’s momentum should the Moon come to rest, embedded in the Earth.”
Yes … *if*! Until such a time as the moon does collide with the the earth (or an asteroid hits the moon or a giant rocket pushes on the moon) there is no second force. When the moon actually hits the earth, then CliffR will be right. Until then, he is wrong!
We now have another “idiot test”:
TRUE or FALSE?
“If a single force acts on a body, the body will not move, because there is only one force acting.”
State Law requires that idiots always be given the correct answer, to be as fair as possible:
FALSE, unequal force on a body produces motion.
Now Tim, what is YOUR answer?
Cliff, your phrasing is very sloppy. Let me clean it up a bit.
“unequal force on a body produces motion.”
You presumably mean “net force” when you say “force” and you presumably mean “unequal to zero”. And you must mean “produces acceleration”.
So yes, non-zero net force on a body produces acceleration. Glad we agree on that. We can congratulate ourselves for restating Newton’s 1st Law!
The moon has a single force (gravity) acting on it, so the net force is not zero.
Since the net force is not zero, the moon must be accelerating (changing speed and/or direction).
That acceleration is in the direction of the lone force (toward the earth), so the moon is accelerating toward the earth.
This sort of inward force (ie centripetal force) causes circular motion (or elliptical motion more generally).
Yep, a single force of gravity maintains orbits without the need of any second force.
Tim, your phrasing is very sloppy — “Cliff”.
And congratulations, you are an idiot! You could not answer correctly, even given the correct answer.
The Moon has TWO forces acting on it. If only gravity were acting on Moon, it would accelerate to Earth.
In your perverted physics, Moon is spiraling to Earth. But your holiest of holies, NASA, claims Moon is moving away from Earth. They claim it is picking up velocity! At least they realize adding more tangential force opposes gravity.
Now that you have proved you’re an idiot, I will not respond if you make the same mistakes. Responding serves no purpose, as idiots cannot learn.
If the moon has TWO forces acting on it then it would accelerate vectored on the net of the two forces, yet the moon only accelerates vectored on the gravity force. Any second force is thus proven zero.
bill hunter says:
Yeah you would like to stick with the cannonball where no experimental analog exists exposing the substance of the cannonball so you can try to preach your religion.
Here’s an experimental analog (v0.3):
1) Put a bowl near the edge of a big plate.
2) Fill the bowl with water.
3) Let a 2nd ceramic bowl float in the water.
5) Rotate the plate around its center.
The water constitutes a reasonably good bearing, so there is little torque on the 2nd bowl.
Will it show the same side to the center of the plate?
S,
You obviously haven’t done this have you? Give it a try, record your results. Give your usual snivelling apology for being a dill.
What’s your prediction?
“Will it show the same side to the center of the plate?”
Just tried it. Yes.
Ha ha ha!
Tried it with a bigger saucepan instead of a bowl, for the 2nd ceramic bowl to float in. This time the answer was no.
Good, we are in agreement on the result.
Then I guess we agree that the MGR frictionless globes would also keep their orientation in the inertial reference frame?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476881
And likewise, Newton’s cannon ball will not show the same side inward.
If you want an experimental analog you need something to represent the force of gravity.
DREMT special:
6) The rotation is too fast if your plate flew off on a tangent.
You cannot do an experiment which is meant to represent orbital motion without including the force of gravity. Try a ball on a string which winds itself inwards. You need to give the ball enough momentum to prevent the string from winding in.
You just need a force that will not add torque.
The string does add torque since it is off center when the ball keeps its orientation.
The string will not add torque in this scenario, because there is never any slack in the string, due to the “winding in” mechanism.
The bowl in water did not show the same side inward.
If you attached a string it would.
Because it creates torque.
The string will not add torque in my scenario, because there is never any slack in the string, due to the winding in mechanism.
“You cannot do an experiment which is meant to represent orbital motion without including the force of gravity. Try a ball on a string”
Gravity does not act at the point on the moon closest to the earth. Gravity acts at the center. The string would have to connect to the center of the ball and not touch the ball. Something like a yo-yo with a frictionless pin in the center. Or mount the ball on a frictionless axle on on merry-go round.
With a more proper analog, it is more obvious that the ball does not experience any torque. If the ball starts with a fixed orientation with respect to the fixed stars, it will maintain a fixed orietnation with respect to the fixed stars, no matter how the string and/or merry-go-round speeds up/slows down/reverse.
Tim, you cut the quote short. Why did you do that? You missed out the part with the “winding in” mechanism. The string does not apply a torque to the ball because there is never any slack in the string. Thus the string can only act through the center of mass of the ball. Just like gravity.
On the contrary, it can not add torque if it’s slack.
There has to be slack for the ball to move off-center, then when the string tightens the resultant torque rotates the ball. With a normal tetherball you would have slack in the string at points. The winding in prevents this slack,
Except dear DR EMPTY,
sin theta is 0
Tim, you’re wrong again.
The net effect is gravity acting center of mass to center of mass, but in reality there is a connection from every molecule on Moon to every molecule on Earth. The “wiring” is cross-connected. So yes, the net effect is center to center, but Moon could not make an orbit facing a distant star. That would require torque, and the “wiring” would get tangled.
Orbital motion, by itself, has the orbiting Moon always with the same side facing Earth. That’s precisely what we observe.
Svante says:
The bowl in water did not show the same side inward.
If you attached a string it would.
Because it creates torque.
=================================
Svante you have deceived yourself. The water is a terrible analog. Not only does water have significant friction, it has a significant way of producing a coriolis effect. You start spinning the plate and the water like the passengers in the car turning right is thrown up against the sides of the bowl creating a bowl shaped surface to the water the depth of which is dependent upon the speed of rotation.
And when this surface water goes to the sides of the bowl it will turn in the opposite direction. Figure 4b of:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/6-4-fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
The strength of the effect depends upon the rotation rate. Generally you can’t produce it in a fixed position sink using the earth’s rotation as the driver. But your experiment isn’t fixed in position its rotating with an angular velocity a few orders of magnitude greater than the earth.
Remove the water if you want to see friction.
It will work like your welded globes.
Water has comparatively low friction at low speeds,
give your boat a push and see.
Why do you go on about the Coriolis effect, your own link agreed that it was irrelevant at this scale.
Svante says:
Not only does water have significant friction,
Remove the water if you want to see friction.
It will work like your welded globes.
Water has comparatively low friction at low speeds,
give your boat a push and see.
it has a significant way of producing a coriolis effect.
Why do you go on about the Coriolis effect, your own link agreed that it was irrelevant at this scale.
====================================
First I believe it said negligible not irrelevant. You dreamt the irrelevance.
I would suggest that you also wouldn’t get much water movement if you rotated the plate at one revolution per day either. But I doubt you did that.
I tried different speeds and got the same effect.
You didn’t try the speed I suggested
Simple experiment. Get a clock motor.
b Hunter, See My Comment about modifying Svante’s demonstration.
….and, more importantly:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-478156
Svante, are you trying this again?
It has been explained to you why this is wrong. Refusing to learn just makes you an idiot.
It’s somewhat analogous to the definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results”.
I expect the same result.
What result did you get?
It has been explained to you why this is wrong. Refusing to learn just makes you an idiot.
Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
Clint Kruger and Dremt Dunning.
Perhaps blob was referring to you, Svante.
DREMPTY,
Let me give you the test!
Are you as smart as you think you are?
However, this
“Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results”
It’s called practise, maybe one day you guys will give it up and realize you have it all wrong.
But you would have to study some science and you have shown no interest in doing that.
No, he was still lurking around waiting to pop up for no real reason.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474981
(2) simple visual cross-correlation shows changes in temperature lagged 60-160 years behind solar-output changes, due to the ocean’s vast heat capacity and slow mixing (Higgs 1, 2)
“ocean’s huge heat capacity and slow circulation lend it significant thermal inertia” (IPCC 2 p.266).
https://bit.ly/3gnqYhq
So according to your own chart TSI increased by at most 1.5 W/m^2. That represents a 1.5/4 * 0.7 = +0.26 W/m^2 contribution to the Earth surface energy budget over a 300 year period. Yet here we are today with OHC increasing at a rate equivalent to +0.6 W/m^2 and that’s after a 1C rise in temperature already. Nevermind that the OHC uptake actually increased after TSI peaked around 1960.
bdgwx
I think you misunderstood the commentator’s idea: that the warming we experience since 60 years is due to the TSI increase which happened 60 years before due to a time lag between TSI and warming accumulation in the oceans.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oNqDPKG15JR4MDhH7xsWZJ0jg147i_XQ/view
Surprisingly, all such people will tell you, when you show how the ln (CO2/Co2-start) fits to temperature records:
Correlation is not causation, Sah!
J.-P. D.
I think I understood it. My point is that a +0.6 W/m^2 energy imbalance cannot be explain by a +0.26 W/m^2 radiative force. But even if the solar radiative force were +0.60 W/m^2 it still started to wane around 1960. OHC uptake rate has increased since then. Nevermind that 1C of warming up to present must have taken at least 1-2 W/m^2 to materialize yet we have only +0.26 W/m^2 of solar radiative force to work with.
I’m okay with the idea that things can still warm even if you turn the energy input down. But in that scenario they warm at a slower rate. They don’t begin warming faster.
The lag cannot explain 1) the increase in the warming rate or 2) how +0.26 W/m^2 can cause OHC to increase by 350e21 joules in 60 years.
bgdwx
I of course agree.
J.-P. D.
Professor Humlum also points out that new data on rising ocean temperatures raise interesting questions about the source of the heat.
“We can detect a great deal of heat rising from the bottom of the oceans. This obviously cannot be anything to do with human activity. So although people say the oceans are warming, in reality there is still much to learn.”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/State-of-the-climate-2019.pdf
Eben
1. Sorry, I can’t see the text you wrote above within the document. But nevertheless: average interior warming is 1 W/m^2, to be compared with 240 W/m^2 from the Sun…
2. I have often shown that Humlum has a very selective way to show data, e.g. the differences between UAH and RSS.
3. I see in the document that a professor (!) is ready to manipulate his unexperienced readers by showing sea level rise
– for satellites at 3 mm/yr
– for tide gauges at 1.5 mm/yr
WITHOUT explaining that while the satellite trend is for 1993-today, the tide gauge trend is for 1900-today, i.e. 120 years !!!
Tide gauge trend for 1993-today, accounting for Vertical Land Movement: 2.6 mm/yr.
4. Conclusion: I never trusted in this man, and won’t start doing.
No wonder that the cola/gas/oil/nuke industry-friendly GWPF presents his data!
Gute Nacht
J.-P. D.
I find it quite amusing to see the wannabes scientists pretenders on this board displaying a complete ignorance of even basics of how a dynamic chaotic system like a climate reacts to changes, be it external or internal.
Yeah, I forgot it is also nonlinear , if you want to ever cure yourself from the delusional forecasting by “Trend straight line projections” , taken from past snippets of data , you might wanna start here
https://youtu.be/fUsePzlOmxw
But that’s only like if you want to learn something, otherwise just stick to your CO2 temperature control knob
“The merry-go-round is rotating. The chalk circle drawn at the edge of it is not rotating on its own axis, though.”
I get it. You picture some cosmic merry-go-round to which the moon is attached. A platform on which you can draw chalk circles or weld merry-go-round horses or place bowls of water. From this perspective, the moon does not have an extra, independent rotation. Fair enough.
But there is another view. A more powerful view that you should at least consider. In this view, an orbit is merely a path … a point moving through space. That path depends on the initial speed & position, and on the gravitational pulls of the myriad other objects in the universe. The object follows that path regardless of any rotation it might have.
Rotation is a separate issue in this view. Any change in rotation relative to the fixed stars requires an external torque. Since gravity applies no torque on a uniform sphere, gravity does not affect the rotation.
[Tidal forces on non-uniform objects do create small torques, but these take many many orbits to fully ‘lock’ an object. The earth is slowing in its rotation, but after 4.5 billion years, it is no where near locked. No planets are locked with the sun. This ‘tidal locking’ should really be called something more like “tidal nudging.]
For many reasons already discussed, there are several powerful reasons to prefer the 2nd view. We are apparently never going to convince each other, but every one should at least acknowledge that both perspectives can be interesting starting points toward understanding.
“Since gravity applies no torque on a uniform sphere, gravity does not affect the rotation.”
True, that’s why we know Moon is not rotating about its axis.
The Moon is not a uniform sphere though. Its center of gravity is offset from its center of mass due to Earth’s tidal force so it does experience a torque.
Well, you don’t know anything about Moon’s offset, bdgwx. You have to rely on NASA. And we know NASA can be deadly wrong.
But, we know Moon is not rotating about its axis. That’s easy to see.
You mean NASA and all University Astronomy departments.
From the dynamic duo under different names, before you got banned twice:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296476
???
Just a bunch of comments?
>> Since gravity applies no torque on a uniform sphere, gravity does not affect the rotation.
> True, that’s why we know Moon is not rotating about its axis.”
No. That is how we know there is NO ANGULAR ACCELERATION. Gravity does not CHANGE the rotation. This tells us nothing about what the rotation was initially, nor about what the rotation is now.
[And again, there are small torques because the moon is not a perfectly uniform sphere, but these torques merely nudge the rotation rate until it is matched with the revolution rate.
No, it does tell us Tim. But you can’t see it. You believe there is only one force acting on Moon!
That makes you an idiot.
Please tells what this 2nd force is!
Gravity is applying a force with magnitude Gm1m2 / r^2 directed toward the earth.
________ is applying a force with magnitude ___________ directed __________________.
ClintR
Again you are just totally wrong.
I will give you an example to demonstrate your error in thought. Not sure why you cling to a wrong idea so vehemently.
A rocket is launched with escape velocity from a planet.
It is moving away and has kinetic energy. You think its motion away from the planet turns into a force? For real? Why do you think this is a correct thought. The motion does not change the motion of the rocket at all. Only the planet’s gravity pulls on the escaping rocket and slows it down changing its velocity. The motion of the rocket is not a force. Your insistence that it is demonstrates you have no understanding of actual physics and just make up your own and call people who don’t accept your phony physics as idiots. Other contrarians have done what you do. A strange mind state. Evidence has no ability to change your course.
What you are proposing is this. The velocity of the Moon changes the velocity of the Moon. The velocity does not change itself. Only Earth’s gravity is changing the Moon’s velocity. Its own velocity is not changing its velocity.
Absurd physics from a contrarian.
“But there is another view. A more powerful view that you should at least consider”
What makes you think I haven’t considered other points of view?
Tim, your phrasing is very sloppy. Let me clean it up a bit.
Moon’s velocity has a magnitude of v, and direction tangent to its orbit. It’s momentum is then mv, same direction as velocity. The force is F = d(mv)/dt, same direction as v.
Moon’s mass is a constant, v is a constant, so ClintR finds:
The force F = d(mv)/dt = 0 same direction as v.
The moon is accelerating under the one nonzero applied force of gravity.
Here’s another example of idiots not knowing what they’re talking about. Ball4’s knowledge of calculus is as bad as his knowledge of physics. Will Bindidon, Svante, Norman, Tim, bdgwx, or any of the rest be able to correct Ball4?
Nope. They haven’t a clue. Truth and accuracy is not their goal.
“Moon’s velocity has a magnitude of v, and direction tangent to its orbit. It’s momentum is then mv, same direction as velocity.”
Yes.
“The force is F = d(mv)/dt, same direction as v.”
Any mechanics textbook develops the equations for uniform circular motion. The force forward is zero because, as you note, the forward velocity is constant (and as Ball4 correctly notes, the derivative of a constant is zero). No force is needed to ‘push’ the moon forward.
The force perpendicular to the velocity is easily shown to be mv^2/r for circular motion. This is exactly the force produced by gravity.
You seem to be claiming that every physics textbook in the world is wrong and you are right (and yet somehow you are basing your conclusions on the physics presented in those textbooks).
Tim Folkerts says:
For many reasons already discussed, there are several powerful reasons to prefer the 2nd view. We are apparently never going to convince each other, but every one should at least acknowledge that both perspectives can be interesting starting points toward understanding.
==========================================
Well it would be useful to hear one or more of those powerful reasons. As it doesn’t seem very powerful to have two ideas that result in different values of total inertia.
“From this perspective, the moon does not have an extra, independent rotation. Fair enough.”
Thanks Tim. Next time, can you help explain that to bdgwx, Ball4, and Swanson, etc?
Tim doesn’t have to DREMT, those screenames already believe their own eyes unlioke DREMT, as Tim writes that happens when: “You picture some cosmic merry-go-round to which the moon is attached”
There is no cosmic merry-go-round DREMT, as Tim points out there is: “A more powerful view…”
Tim at least understands that a chalk circle is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Only if “You picture some cosmic merry-go-round to which the moon is attached” that your eyes do not observe. There is a more powerful view that your eyes do observe.
You do not need a cosmic merry-go-round to picture an actual merry-go-round with an actual chalk circle, Troll4.
So now you disagree with Tim, that’s expected as Tim understands rigid body dynamics as shown in text Fig. 2(b) “rotation” and the experimental videos.
Fig. 2(b) shows a rectangle rotating about point O, and not on its own axis. Fig 2(b) supports the Non-Spinners. Which is why I linked to it in the first place.
That’s wrong DREMT, the axis through O doesn’t intersect the rectangle, thus per your own author that axis is not an axis of rotation despite the unreliable wiki passage.
The rectangle is rotating about point O. It is even connected to it by a rod.
Not as DREMT made clear, the axis through O does not intersect the rectangle. Per DREMT’s rigid body dynamics author that eliminates that axis as being a rotational axis in 2(b) “rotation” on rectangle’s own intersecting axis. The rectangle orbits point O.
Wikipedia makes it clear that the axis of rotation need not go through the body in question, a correct reading of the text shows no disagreement between the author and Wikipedia, and the author does not use the word orbit to describe the motion in Fig. 2(b).
That’s a PRATT DREMT:
Text: “If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration”
Wiki: “The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
In the wiki case no particle has zero velocity and zero acceleration. Wiki is proven unreliable except when DREMT reads wiki to agree with DREMT, then wiki is reliable. Sorry Charlie.
“In the wiki case no particle has zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
That’s right. Because the axis of rotation does not intersect the body.
Yes, very good DREMT, then it’s an orbital axis about O with no intersection of the rigid body in Fig. 2(b). Great job. Try to string together your thoughts all at once now: Fig. 2(b) “rotation” shows nonintersecting orbital axis thru O and an intersecting axis through the rigid plate.
That’s wrong Ball4, the rectangle is “in rotation” about point O, not on its own axis.
Because, as Wikipedia and the author of the text agree, the axis of rotation need not go through the body.
The author of the text does not agree DREMT, you read what you want to read:
If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.
Wiki: “The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
It is wiki that is unreliable not the text author.
Now Ball4 cannot understand the word if…
Norman, you must have forgotten the rules: “If your response makes any of the same mistakes, or includes even one falsehood, I will not respond.”
Notice Tim obeyed the rules, this time.
ClintR
I know what your confusion is based upon. There are TWO vectors that you are adding to find the result. There are NOT two forces. There is only gravity, no other.
Velocity is not a force, it is a vector.
If the magnitude of the velocity vector and the gravitational vector are equal and the direction is perpendicular you get your orbit. Many other paths are possible with the vector sum.
You are still very very confused with your made up physics.
With a rocket, as long as the engines are operating you will have two forces. Gravity with a downward vector and the impulse of the rocket engine with and upward vector. Now you have two forces acting upon the rocket. If the gravity is greater magnitude the rocket falls to Earth. If the magnitudes are exactly the same the rocket hovers motionless. If the engine magnitude exceeds the gravitational magnitude the rocket goes up.
When the engine exhausts its fuel the velocity NEVER becomes a force, your ideas are flawed. Now only the force of gravity acts on the rocket changing its velocity. The velocity of the rocket does not change its velocity. I am stunned you can’t logically understand your error of thought. Never underestimate the closed mind of a contrarian. Gordon Robertson’s hero Peter Duesberg never changed his closed mind even when confronted with mountains of evidence. Contrarians seen unable or unwilling to accept their errors.
It’s always amazing how none of the idiots correct nonsense like this. Is Bindidon going to find the flaws? Svante? Tim? bdgwx?
Of course not. None of them can find the flaws.
That’s why they’re idiots.
ClintR
The error is still yours. Not the others that actually understand real physics.
Your equation: “The force is F = d(mv)/dt, same direction as v.”
A change in momentum can only take place if there is a force acting on the object with the momentum. That is what the equation states. It does not state the velocity vector is a force. That is something you made up that is not correct. Velocity is NOT a force. It does not change the momentum of itself. You still don’t understand valid physics and you are not even trying to learn it. I tried to help you with the example of a rocket. With and engine operating there are two forces. With no engine going only gravity is the acting force on the rocket.
Another example, if the Moon were moving in a straight line and moved between two massive planets so that each planet exerted the same gravity force on the Moon what do you think will happen. Will the velocity make the Moon change its direction because it is a force acting on itself? No the Moon will continue as if there were no planets. Straight through with the same velocity. Not change in momentum. Still can’t see it can you?
Look here! It’s Norman again, with more of his “science”!
I didn’t realize people could be so stupid. Norman is beyond idiot. He’s into criminally insane.
He’s absolutely amazingly ignorant, and just keeps putting out junk as if he’s got an endless supply.
I suppose I will have find time to make a response this evening. If I can stop laughing….
(I didn’t put all the freak symbols in there. Something blew up. It appears the blog didn’t like apostrophes. Live and learn.)
ClintR
It seems funny you think actual science is ignorance. You don’t really understand anything I wrote so you react in a senseless child state. Of course you are not able to explain what you find stupid in my posts, what is wrong with them scientifically or logically.
Rather you attack like a little child. You have nothing else to offer. You are proven wrong. You are proven ignorant of science.
You call real science junk and favor you unsupported made up version.
Crazy how empty the mind of a contrarian is. Nothing to stand on.
Aren’t you the one who was bawling like a little boy when you said I was attacking you and not responding rationally.
Well I respond with real science (links included). I give you very rational and logical thought. You are proven wrong so you rant about it. What is the deal with that?
Can you find any valid science (not your made up version) that proves my points invalid? No, not only can’t you do this, you won’t do it.
Contrarian to the last.
That whole “Spock” thing you were going for didn’t last long, did it?
DREMT
That was actually quite Spocklike for the childish attack of Contrarian ClintR.
Mr. Spock did get annoyed with McCoy on multiple occasions and would provide his own version of “slams” against his attacks.
Rather than ClintR using logic or valid physics to refute what I said he attacks in such fashion: “I didn’t realize people could be so stupid. Norman is beyond idiot. He’s into criminally insane.”
If this poster wishes to use this behavior there is little to be gained by ignoring such rants.
It does work both ways.
My post above his rant was logical and contained no offensive language. I do not accept ClintR’s response to my post as worthy of any respect.
Keep your moderation up though. I do want to be a more rational less emotional poster. If you want to act as a moderator it would be nice that it was a balanced form of moderation. We don’t need a Skeptical Science style moderator. Thanks.
OK, Norman.
norman…”There are TWO vectors that you are adding to find the result. There are NOT two forces. There is only gravity, no other”.
Yes, Norman, but momentum is a pseudo-force, if the Moon collided with something it’s momentum would be converted into a force. It takes a force to create momentum and an equal and opposite force to reduce momentum to zero.
Without linear momentum the Moon cannot stay in orbit, therefore two vectors are required to produce the resultant orbital path.
You don’t need to use force vectors, you can use velocity vectors. There is one vector acting instantaneously and tangentially, part of the mv of linear momentum. There is another velocity vector acting instantaneously and radially, produced by gravitational force. That velocity vector is changing with time since it is part of acceleration, but you can calculate the average velocity vector over a brief time range or distance.
v = vo + at = vo + gt …where g = 9.8m/s^2
Here’s what Newton had to say about it:
“The accelerative quantity of a centripetal force is the measure, of the same, proportional to the velocity which it generates in a given time”.
When you are dealing with a changing curve like an orbit, you have to deal with it in instants. The instantaneous rate of change of a curve at a point is the slope of the tangent line at that point, or the first derivative of the curve equation.
At time = t the equation above will give you an instantaneous velocity vector. Using it perpendicular to the v of linear momentum gives:
(vr)^2 = (vg)^2 + (vm)^2
Where vr = the resultant or orbital velocity, vg is velocity at time t for gravitational velocity. and vm = the velocity in the momentum vector. Remember, the orbital velocity vector gives you an instantaneous direction for the orbital path.
Remember as well, the v in mv is derived from the application of a force: m is accelerated by f till f = 0 then m moves at constant velocity, v, provided there is no force to decelerate it. If you apply a force in the opposite direction, m will decelerate till v = 0. That’s why I claim that momentum can be claimed as a pseudo-force.
If you calculate the force required to stop the Moon’s momentum, and use it tangentially with the radial gravitational force, it should give you the orbital path.
The real problem is more complex, I am only trying to demonstrate that two vectors are required to determine the orbital path. If you look at the problem very closely you can see gravity is accelerating the Moon, essentially causing it to fall slightly. At the same time, the Moon’s momentum is carry the Moon in a tangential direction.
The combination produces the orbital path.
Gordon Robertson
Thank you for the post. A valid science post with no contrarian physics. I hope you continue to post in this fashion in the future.
No, Gordon’s post is FULL of bad physics!
“momentum is a pseudo-force”
NO. Not even close
“You don’t need to use force vectors, you can use velocity vectors.”
You use force vectors for forces and velocity vectors for velocities. They are not interchangeable.
“There is one vector acting instantaneously and tangentially, part of the mv of linear momentum.”
It is unclear what “one vector” he is talking about now.
* There is a single velocity vector. It is pointing straight ahead along the circular orbit (tangential). It does not “act”.
* There is no tangential force vector pointing forward. If there were, the moons speed would be increasing or decreasing in the tangential direction.
“There is another velocity vector acting instantaneously and radially, produced by gravitational force. ”
* There is no velocity inward. The velocity is instantaneously always forward (tangential)
* There is an *acceleration* inward, which changes the direction of the velocity vector. This is what is produced by gravity.
“but you can calculate the average velocity vector over a brief time range or distance.
v = vo + at = vo + gt …where g = 9.8m/s^2”
That equation is for instantaneous velocity, v, not average velocity.
Also, g is about 0.0027 at the moon, not 9.8 like it is at the earth’s surface.
I could go on, but there is really no point. The rest is just as bad.
Norman sure is having a bad day.
DREMT
Not really having a bad day. I am thankful for the corrections. I have not studied general physics for many years. My desire to read textbook material on radiant heat transfer was because of errors I was making. It motivated me to learn the correct material. I have gaps in my knowledge of mechanics. After a couple corrections to my posts it seems a good time to invest in some reading and enhance my knowledge on the topic before posting more.
OK, Norman.
Enso 3.4 just hit -0.5C. North Atlantic dropping, WELL below baseline. ENSO 1+2 ice cold. Global ocean below 0.2C. Haven’t seen that in a while.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3265259400159927/?d=n
This has been an interesting and eye-opening adventure. I didn’t realize that a science blog would be so infested with absolute idiots. Several are even proud to be idiots!
They cannot understand anything about Moon. The recent issue is their claiming that the Moon only has one force acting on it. That force is gravity, and it does EVERYTHING! According to them, that single force can pull on Moon, push on Moon, and steer Moon! It’s an amazing force.
For some reason, they deny there are two vectors actually involved in orbital motion. I don’t understand why they deny that, but then I’m not an idiot. Here are some samplings of their denial of the second force:
“Any second force is thus proven zero.”…ball4
“Yep, a single force of gravity maintains orbits without the need of any second force.”…Tim Folkerts
“The body in motion is not a force.”…Norman
For some reason, they hate that second force. The “second force” is the force due to Moon’s velocity. I’ve explained several times how that force comes about, but you can’t explain physics to idiots.
But you would think that they would trust NASA. Some subdivisions of NASA are actually very good. There is some very good science and engineering within NASA and their subcontractors. They know a lot about satellites. One common problem with satellites is drag, especially if the sat has a Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Drag can cause a satellite to lose velocity, and cause it to fall out of the sky.
Some satellites can be powered into a higher orbit, as long as the fuel lasts. Some satellites are high enough drag is minimal. The point is, NASA understands there are TWO forces at work in orbital motion. But this is one of the obvious facts that eludes idiots.
Now Norman is a “special case”. You can tell by his long comments that never really go anywhere. He just seems to be muttering to himself about Gordon and “contrarians”. He goes a little beyond just claiming there is no “second force”. He claims that a second force isn’t possible. He denies Newton’s 2nd Law. He claims if you have motion, you dont have a force.
He used a rocket as an example to prove that there was no second force. He admitted that when the rocket fuel ran out, the rocket would return to Earth, not realizing that it takes two forces to maintain altitude or orbit. Logic is not one of his strong suits.
All he needs to do is drive to the nearest Interstate, get in front of an 80,000# semi-truck going 70 mph, and stop! The semi will not hurt him when it crashes into him because “The body in motion is not a force”.
To my fellow “Non-Rotators”, I have to be offline for awhile. Keep up the great work. I hope to return soon.
It is truly sad ClintR has other reasons to be offline, the humor will be less fun around here. DREMT will have to up his game.
Have to admit though there really is more than 1 force acting on the moon. The galaxy we inhabit has in a recent count over 200bln stars (Sagan: billions and billions) each of which exert a nonzero force F=ma on our moon.
So it looks like I was off by more than 200bln forces on the moon. In addition, there exist other galaxies, all rotating on their own axis just like our moon, which also are putting a force on our moon along with countless crashed objects forcing the moon. All that in addition to tidal forces.
However, it remains moon’s momentum is not a force adding to the count since:
Moon’s mass m is a constant, v is a constant, so ClintR finds:
The force F = d(mv)/dt = 0 same direction as v.
Ball4
But all those interactions you describe are gravity with insignificant effects on the orbital motion of the Moon. A different force could be magnetic but the Moon has a very weak field.
Can you answer a question? How does ClintR reason out that momentum is a force? Where does that come from? He calls everyone who tells him he is wrong an idiot. I linked him to an actual University physics course that states clearly he is wrong but he won’t accept even real science. I just wonder on his thought process. It makes no sense to me.
He uses a collision to prove a moving object is a force. He does not even grasp that the momentum transfers but it does not change (in a perfectly elastic collision).
A moving object hits a stationary object. The moving object stops and the momentum transfer to the stationary object and it continues to move as the other. No change in momentum just a transfer from one object to the other.
If you can help me understand the contrarian mind set it would be helpful.
Insignificant effects sure, Norman, but nonzero.
Help is on the way: Look up the wiki definition of Heyoka warrior, proof that many societies and tribes have their own ClintRs and DREMTs since by other names a rose will smell as sweet.
As far as momentum Norman, ClintR’s F = d(mv)/dt is just F=ma when v is not constant in the direction of v and m is constant.
ClintR doesn’t agree with the primary most significant acceleration of the moon correctly so it is likely ClintR will also not be able to cope with the secondary effects.
The rotating moon’s orbital motion in falling forward is accelerated slightly by tides in the direction of v so v is actually changing a bit, increasing.
That orbital speed increase, an acceleration, forces the moon into a higher orbit of earth. The laser reflectors on the moon have been able to measure it, I’ll let you research further.
Ball4
Thanks for the very interesting link on the Heyoka warrior. I had not heard of that before. It seems at least some Contrarian behavior is valuable to a group. They are designed to provoke thought by being contrarian. I don’t think it promotes thought by just repeating things that are proven wrong. I think the contrarians on this blog maybe should look up the warrior and see what the function is. It is to bring up these questions and let the discussion begin. A failure is the endless repeats of disproven ideas. This no longer promotes useful thought process. It generally ends in childish attacks of which I get into in frustration as do a lot of people. I can’t see how that is productive.
Anyway I hope the contrarians read the article and work on honing their skills to become more useful and productive citizens with their certain mental structure.
Wow.
Yeah wow, you do learn new things here once in a while.
Wow, how enormously offensive.
Not from you though.
Silence.
ClintR
The semi-truck smashing into to you is NOT a force, it is a transfer of energy. You have a multiple body problem. No new force is there. Energy is transferred from one object to another, not force.
Making up your invalid physics might appeal to fellow contrarians but it is not correct.
The forces of nature are Gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic.
It does not take two forces to maintain altitude and orbit. That is what you make up. Prove your points with real physics or don’t make them. I really don’t care about your phony make believe physics. Prove your points with real or valid physics. You don’t and never will but you will insult people who prove you are wrong and clueless as all contrarians are.
To change motion requires force. To maintain motion requires zero force.
Read the second law again. You only have a force present if the object is accelerating. The velocity has to be changing.
norman…”The semi-truck smashing into to you is NOT a force, it is a transfer of energy”.
Here comes the generic energy argument again.
If you get hit by a semi travelling at a decent speed, you are claiming it won’t accelerate you through the air? What kind of energy do you think it is transferring, is it not mechanical energy, as in a force?
Gordon Robertson
NO I am not claiming at all that a person hit by a semi won’t accelerate through the air. I am saying there is an exchange of energy but no force needed. The semi loses some energy and you gain some. It is a multiple object situation.
When you hit pool balls with a cue ball, the stationary balls temporarily accelerate as energy is transferred. On a frictionless surface with elastic balls momentum is exchanged from the cue ball to the others but the total amount remains unchanged for the multi-body situation. If a force was actually present (like metal balls with a strong electromagnet turned on) all the balls are affected and they accelerate toward the force. The force changes the momentum of the whole system. The force will accelerate a standing ball with no exchange of energy via another ball. There is a difference.
Sorry Norman, but this is just wrong. There is very definitely a force when a truck hits a person! There is a force that causes definite acceleration.
There is ALSO an exchange of energy. The truck applies a force through a distance, doing work on the person and transferring energy from teh truck to the person.
Tim Folkerts
I am sure you are correct. I did not know that an exchange of energy was considered an actual force. The 4 basics are gravity, the two nuclear and electromagentic.
Air molecules are constantly colliding and exchanging energy. I did not know that these exchanges were considered actual forces since no system momentum is actually changing. Some molecules slow down, others speed up but no overall acceleration or deceleration of the total ensemble of molecules. Like a bunch of ions bouncing around, if an actual force was present then all would move in some direction toward the force, otherwise they just exchange energy.
I did not know this was considered a force even though it does change one body the other is also changed. But there is a definite change in both. I thought in physics it would be the complete effect of all the objects involved. In a friction less state with perfectly elastic collision with a group of balls, the one moving in a given direction does not alter the overall momentum of the combined objects. Some will change energy states but the system momentum was not changed.
Contact forces are ultimately electromagnetic. The interactions of the charges on the two surfaces.
norman…”I am sure you are correct. I did not know that an exchange of energy was considered an actual force. The 4 basics are gravity, the two nuclear and electromagentic”.
A push is a force, a pull is a force. The friction between a rolling tire and the ground is a force.
Force is energy, and vice-versa. That’s why I have been harping on in this blog about the use of the generic energy term. No one knows what energy is but we have divided it as a phenomenon into various forms of energy. Force is mechanical energy.
When you work out a dynamics problem with a mass sliding down an inclined plane, you must apply the component of force down the plane that depends on the angle of the plane. Gravity acts straight down toward the centre of the Earth but only a component of that vertical force acts down the plane.
You must also apply a force vector up the plane, opposing the force component vector, to represent friction. If the forces balance as in a bridge structure, there is no motion.
With the Moon problem you can regard the Moon as having kinetic energy along a linear, tangential path. You can also regard gravity as giving the Moon kinetic energy along a normal, or radial path. The combined effect of those energies is a resultant orbital path.
nate…”Contact forces are ultimately electromagnetic. The interactions of the charges on the two surfaces”.
I’m sure you meant to say electrostatic.
Gordon Robertson says:
No, energy is force multiplied by distance.
Svante,
Sure force = energy, momentum = force, so momentum = energy.
And BTW
time = money, money = power, money + power = super-model wives.
So time = super-models.
Something like that.
clint..”For some reason, they deny there are two vectors actually involved in orbital motion”.
There has to be two vectors, otherwise the Moon would spiral down into the Earth. The lunar orbit is a resultant between two vectors.
The argument is over the kind of vectors. I have seen arguments here that momentum is not a vector but it is a vector quantity. If you had to, you could treat momentum as a force vector if you could calculate the force required to reduce the Moon’s momentum to zero. Turning that vector around and pointing it in the direction of the Moon’s linear momentum, you’d then have two forces at right angles, albeit one of them a pseudo-force.
So we use a pseudo-vector. ☺
Oh, we know there are LOTS of vectors involved with orbits.
* position
* velocity
* accelerating
* momentum
* angular momentum
* force
* torque
What we deny is that there is a second significant force besides gravity.
We also deny that momentum is force.
OK, Tim.
Here’s Newton II straight from Newton himself…his original wording as translated from Latin in Principia:
“The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.
If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subducted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both”.
As far as I can make out, Newton made no reference to momentum, his feeling seemed to be that a mass contained a resistance to a motion or to a change in motion. This notion of the second law being an expression of the change in momentum is not what Newton inferred.
In a similar manner, I have seen the 2nd law of thermodynamics defined on entropy and that is contrary to the way Clausius defined the 2nd law. Clausius defined the 2nd law in words well before he developed the entropy equation and he said nothing about entropy.
As far as I am concerned, Newton II is about the acceleration produced when a resultant force acts on a mass in the direction of motion. Referring to that process as a change in momentum is almost an argument in semantics.
Momentum is a phenomenon much a kin to inertia, if not inertia itself. When one steps on the gas peddle in a car and feels the acceleration no one comments about the change in momentum. When a car slows down, it decelerates, it does not go through a negative change in momentum.
“(Clausius) said nothing about entropy.”
Gordon has been shown Clausius 2nd law many times before but can’t comprehend Clausius’ Ninth Memoir in Mechanical Theory of Heat 1867 p.865 found for free on the internet since Gordon won’t appeal to an authority:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
“When a car slows down, it decelerates, it does not go through a negative change in momentum.”
When a car slows down (hugely sub light speed) dv/dt is negative thus so is acceleration and rate of change of momentum. Gordon wouldn’t know this because according to Gordon time does not exist and A. Einstein was wrong about time.
How about light Gordon? Does light have momentum without possessing mass? To answer this, Gordon should correctly appeal to authority.
I have been very quite because there is nothing to say because everything is the same as it was. When something changes which I expect then I will start to comment.
One thing for sure is global warming has not taken place the oceanic temperatures are essentially flat lining. That will be key.
Hello Salvaltore
glad to see you are OK enough to appear here again.
And I see you are in still best form:
” One thing for sure is global warming has not taken place the oceanic temperatures are essentially flat lining. ”
*
That the global warming happened you can see everywhere, even in UAH6.0 LT (except you look only at the three most recent months).
*
And for Supercoolista SAMURAI I recently generated a chart comparing oceanic temperatures (global vs. in the Northern Atlantic region):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OSMgqD7ZcXBr6ql0dhQf0rHW4_unY4_/view
As you can see, we are (luckily) not in front of this Global Cooling some people try to convince us about.
Global trends in C, per decade
for HadISST1
– 1979-now: 0.11 +- 0.01
– 2010-now: 0.21 +- 0.03
for UAH6.0 LT oceans
– 1979-now: 0.11 +- 0.01
– 2010-now: 0.32 +- 0.05
As you can see, the trend at sea surface is a lot lower than that for the LT, i.e. 4 km above surface… but both increase faster since a while.
Best greetings from (the currently a bit too cool) Germoney
J.-P. D.
Thanks Bindidon. I see no real significant changes.
Salvatore
” I see no real significant changes. ”
But just above you wrote:
” One thing for sure is global warming has not taken place the oceanic temperatures are essentially flat lining. ”
You cheat yourself.
If they were ‘flat lining’, Salvatore, then the trends since 2010 would be the same as those since 1979.
Nonsense. They are not at all.
Not that I would complain: I don’t want the Globe getting too warm let alone too cold.
J.-P. D.
Exactly what climate skool did they teach you to make forecast by projecting snippets of past cherry picked trends straight into the future ???
Flat lining?
Perhaps you should have a look at Cheng 2020: Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019
https://tinyurl.com/uggmemm
Perhaps you should look at ocean tid bits site and the satellite data site. No significant changes and that is what I use. Not biased sites.
If by “ocean tid bits site” you actually mean tropicaltidbits then you’ll be pleased to know that I go to that site daily.
Did you know that their SST products come from CDAS which is a reanalysis dataset? Are you okay with that? And did you know that this dataset has a warming trend of +0.172C/decade since 1979 for the global mean surface temperature? Help me out…what is UAH’s warming trend?
Yes I know but that is the past and I expected warming until around 2005 or 2006.
Lag times have to be appreciated that is the only thing us that expect cooling are having trouble with. It is when not if.
CDAS trend from 2005 to present is 0.225C/decade…even higher than from 1979.
Regarding the lag…the Earth energy imbalance is about +0.6 W/m^2 and its been that way for quite some time. There’s a lag alright. We still have a decade or two of warming to equilibriate and drive that imbalance back to 0 W/m^2 assuming what ever induced that imbalance ceases immediately.
We’ll have ups and downs in the troposphere temperature along the way as heat is transferred around the various reservoirs like the shallow ocean, deep ocean, cryosphere, troposphere, etc.
I think when the warming ends it will be abrupt not gradual. That is how past events have tended to be.
–Salvatore Del Prete says:
May 27, 2020 at 1:08 PM
I think when the warming ends it will be abrupt not gradual. That is how past events have tended to be.–
Care to give some instances of this?
Hi Salvatore,
The cooling is coming, but it will take time. Intermediate cycles of 42 years and 60 years combined to create the warm conditions, and now they will combine to create the cold conditions. We have just finished the peak of the 3.6 year cycle and will now have multiple la nina periods over the next 1 1/2 years.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3130071703678698/?d=n
Yes it is . You have weakening magnetic field ,cosmic rays increasing and low solar just when not if.
It looks like a La Nina and solar min may occur at the same time. I hope the La Nina is big like 1998-2001. I want to see how low UAH TLT will go.
If you are as smart about climate as you act like here you should be able to predict it easily
First…I’m not smart about climate. I am but an amateur that has a lot to learn still.
Second…I will make a prediction. The lowest I can see UAH TLT going during a strong La Nina is -0.2C assuming there are no volcanic eruptions. The most likely value is probably closer to 0.0C for the presumed upcoming La Nina cycle.
bdgwx says:
FirstIm not smart about climate. I am but an amateur that has a lot to learn still.
SecondI will make a prediction. The lowest I can see UAH TLT going during a strong La Nina is -0.2C assuming there are no volcanic eruptions. The most likely value is probably closer to 0.0C for the presumed upcoming La Nina cycle.
================================
I wouldn’t disagree with that. One has to note that larger displacements of climate occur over decades and tend to be characterized by dominance of a single pattern of ENSO. We have seen it with El Ninos in recent years. we haven’t yet gotten good at predicting single ENSO events. It is pretty clear we need to get better at that before we can start predicting bunches of them.
Same problem with the LIA being linked to the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum didn’t cause the LIA. But it possible it contributed in combination with the Wolf and Sporer miniums. Again stuff happening in bunches.
Bindidon says:
“And I see you are in still best form”.
Better than that, our top gentleman is responding in-thread this time!
Only a week to the next figures.
A drop coming again.
Lags are delayed results.
Since the recent ocean warming there has been a 3 month plus drop in equatorial cloudiness.
A big drop in ENSO in the last 4 weeks.
Expect a big satellite temperature drop. Hopefully this month. If not next month.
Will it be under 0.30, 0.20 or even ……?
… 0.10, and of no consequence for global warming because it is long term.
…0.25 is my guess.
What does the full UAH trend line say?
I think the trendline is at +0.33C right now.
Reanalysis is about 0.10-0.15 lower from April for the 2mT so I’ll go with a 0.13C from +0.38 to +0.25 on UAH TLT.
2mT does not always match UAH TLT…sometimes they even move in opposite directions.
We’ll see…
are you using climate length trends? in those trends, breaking uah roughly 40 years into two 20 year increments the warming trend has actually reduced a tiny bit.
I used Excel’s LINEST function on the entire UAH TLT product. The trendline lands on +0.33C for the current month.
If we divide UAH TLT into two equal halves before-1999/8 and after-1999/8 you get 0.154C/decade for the first half and 0.163C/decade for the second half.
So…the warming trend for the second half is higher than the first half. It has increased a tiny bit.
It never moves up or down in a straight line so don’t get your hopes too high
It is always amazing to see that people pretend to know others would trust in any straight line, let alone would hope anything based on what they don’t look at.
I only look at long range running means.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e8G0qLSneg6lNg_eIC5wHBOcU56L3xdE/view
J.-P. D.
bdg…”If we divide UAH TLT into two equal halves before-1999/8 and after-1999/8 you get 0.154C/decade…”
According to the UAH 33 year report, if you remove the cooling due to aerosols you have a trend of about 0.09C/decade. Please note as well that negative anomalies represent cooling from the global average represented by the baseline.
And if we removed the unexpected aerosol loading in the 2000’s, the Montreal Protocol reductions, and the stratospheric contamination then warming would have been more.
And no…negative anomalies do not mean cooling. Cooling happens when later values are broadly lower than earlier values regardless of whether the anomalies are negative or positive. For UAH TLT and every other dataset later values are broadly higher than earlier values. Warming occurred. For UAH specifically that trend is +0.135C/decade over the entire range.
bdgwx says:
May 29, 2020 at 9:20 AM
And if we removed the unexpected aerosol loading in the 2000s, the Montreal Protocol reductions, and the stratospheric contamination then warming would have been more.
And nonegative anomalies do not mean cooling. Cooling happens when later values are broadly lower than earlier values regardless of whether the anomalies are negative or positive. For UAH TLT and every other dataset later values are broadly higher than earlier values. Warming occurred. For UAH specifically that trend is +0.135C/decade over the entire range.
============================
Unfortunately even 40 year records are polluted. Bot back 40 years and that is the inception of the current warming. Before that it was cooling at least for 3 decades.
bdg…”And nonegative anomalies do not mean cooling”.
I did not say cooling per se I referenced the cooling to the baseline which represents the global average over a range. Negative anomalies do represent cooling wrt the baseline.
NOAA defines them that way, surely you are not contradicting the authority to whom you appeal?
Gordon Robertson says:
I would say cooling is when the temperature is going down.
svante…”I would say cooling is when the temperature is going down”.
Up and down is relative. In the case of anomalies the boundary between up and down is the baseline. On the UAH graph the baseline is the 1981 – 2010 global average. If the series dips below it the temperatures are cooling relative to the baseline.
Even after the 2016 EN peak the temperatures have been cooling and warming. The question is, which way will they go ultimately? Probably up and down.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Up and down is relative.”
Relative to absolute zero.
“The question is, which way will they go ultimately?”
Up and down short term (a few decades).
Longer term it will go ln(CO2) plus feed backs.
Do you remember Francis Wilson?
https://tinyurl.com/y9b8soqm
when we get to 60 years we should have a much improved view of what is going on.
bill…”when we get to 60 years we should have a much improved view of what is going on”.
Yes, but if it cools, look for diehard alarmists to claim the cooling is temporary and that global warming theory predicted it.
Well you have to find the reasons. If it’s due to a few major volcano eruptions and we keep adding CO2 then global warming will make come back stronger than ever.
Svante says:
Well you have to find the reasons. If its due to a few major volcano eruptions and we keep adding CO2 then global warming will make come back stronger than ever.
==============================
Yes you do need to understand natural variation. You need to understand that to understand what stronger than ever might actually add up to.
Well it’s:
dT = λ*5.35 ln(C/Co)
svante…”Well you have to find the reasons.”
Exactly. But the alarmists are not looking very hard for the cause of the warming. They claim it is CO2 and I claim it is re-warming from the Little Ice Age. There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to account for such warming.
Not plausible Gordon.
Re-warming should slow down as we approach the old average.
This one accelerated as it overshot it.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Svante, we’ve only been able to meaningfully collect temperature data for about 300 years. Now look at where 300 years ago appears on your silly chart.’
You must enjoy being an idiot. You’re so good at it.
Svante says:
Not plausible Gordon.
Re-warming should slow down as we approach the old average.
This one accelerated as it overshot it.
======================================
Wrong again! It is plausible. What we have here are several layers of natural variation. We have ENSO variation, which currently is the main hat pin warmists are hanging their hats on today. Second, we have multi-decadal variation – Visit Climate Etc. Dr. Curry points out that CO2 cannot explain the warming from the 1920’s into the 1940’s.
The long term warming could be a recovery from the LIA. The LIA seems rather strongly associated with solar activity with the Wolf, Sporer, and Maunder minumums driving cooling for several centuries.
Add into that if indeed its low solar activity that drove the LIA a solar grand maximum never seen before in the solar activity record. And here we are loitering and speculating standing atop a quadruple peak in these natural variables. The test of the theory of CO2 has yet to occur. the magnitude of warming is beyond our ability to attribute to either natural or fossil fuel emissions in a quantified way. Climate models continually overestimate it. In general they hold common assumptions that could be an explanation for that. And we know what that would most likely be. Too much sharing of information from climate models in coming up with adjustments though drives a stake clean through the heart of the basic concept of multiple lines of evidence as utilized by the IPCC.
The IPCC science process has improved a great deal from the criticisms of the past. Thank Gordon for helping spur that.
The 2009 paper by Syun Akasofu outlined the plausibility of the concept that the LIA recovery, which started about 165 to 180 years before the Industrial age is responsible for the 140 to 155 year warming trend of about .5C that covers the industrial age. Slip it back another 165 to 180 years the trend may actually be more. After all the glaciers were melting faster back 150 years ago than today.
IMO, it was a very bad move to adjust all the surface records to include modeled polar data. It helped with a waning warming trend but it raised big questions of bias. It in significant part begged the question using models, it mostly ignored the retreat of sea ice at times in the past, and it was a gross violation of the original principles of non-random station data still being able to provide a warming trend without any assurance of being close on the absolute global mean surface temperature when the only real reason for including the polar data would be to move the data closer to actual means, while still not including a lot of forest and mountain landscapes. The motivation was to capture an observed accelerated warming trend to help with the waning trend over the vast majority of the globe.
Such a move considering it has taken many years to melt down decades old ice accumulations makes especially the arctic a huge lagging factor. So being past some of the peaks is facilitated not just by delayed feedbacks but by pinning the measurements more tightly to the feedbacks likely with the longest delay in realization. One can easily fashion an argument that much of the warming post LIA was held back by ice feedbacks. As glaciers and sea ice was growing through the entire 18th and half of the 19th centuries accounting for the end of the LIA occuring at the beginning of the IR.
(long accepted as being +or- 2c). Thats the one of primary reasons I have favored satellite temperature data. If you are going to use non-random data to establish a trend you have to be very consistent with your sources. The other major reasons are lack of standardization of equipment and procedures (which granted folks try to fix after the fact), and the issue of UHI sampling and interpolation between points experiencing the most other human effects through land use, urbanization, etc. I mean before global warming was an issue and before the surface record administrators realized they were being over-shadowed by satellites who ever would have thought to put a weather station where there were no people?
Not plausible bill.
You can forget about the medieval warm period, 30+ proxies tell us that we have left it behind.
https://tinyurl.com/y8adqke5
We are about to shoot through the Holocene climatic optimum which took 8000 years to climb down from.
https://tinyurl.com/hq6fu5o
Line by line radiative transfer models tell us what the effect should be. It’s just a logarithmic function of GHGs. CO2 is a good proxy for all of them, thus the thick black line here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Svante says:
We are about to shoot through the Holocene climatic optimum which took 8000 years to climb down from.
https://tinyurl.com/hq6fu5o
============================================
Svante you aren’t very good at this. You ought to at least read what you are going to post before posting it.
Here is what you missed:
In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on Real Climate earlier today, Marcott et al. make this startling admission:
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called uptick in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
———————————–
ROTFLMAO!!! And thats from the author Svante! He says his work is not a good basis for what you just said.
I’m sorry you ROTFLYAO, hope it doesn’t hurt too much.
It is well known that the uptick is not robust.
It is not needed because we have the instrumental record for that period.
https://tinyurl.com/otw7k24
There are other proxy studies for later periods if you want to verify the instrumental record.
Svante says:
Im sorry you ROTFLYAO, hope it doesnt hurt too much.
It is well known that the uptick is not robust.
It is not needed because we have the instrumental record for that period.
https://tinyurl.com/otw7k24
There are other proxy studies for later periods if you want to verify the instrumental record.
======================================
If you understood what Marcott was saying about smoothing he was saying the uptick on his graph wasn’t smoothed but everything else was. Thus this uptick would not show up in the Marcott proxies unless it continues for quite a few more years. In which case then I would be ready to consider it as being real climate change. As it stands at the moment it is only potential climate change and actually Marcott’s definition of climate and our other knowledge of climate double underlines that fact.
Svante says:
Well its:
dT = λ*5.35 ln(C/Co)
==============================
Incorrect! That’s merely an input figure, if the windows of a house are open you need a bigger furnace to get the same result.
Especially may be true when you bolt the furnace to a ceiling at about 30,000 feet.
In this case the furnace variation is an order of magnitude smaller than the the window effect.
Stratospheric cooling says the window is closing.
Solar increase would have warmed it.
Cooling means warming? Come on Svante you need more than that you are getting to be like a parrot.
“Cooling means warming? ”
Yes Bill. Add insulation to your attic.
In winter, the mice who live in your attic will complain that its gotten too cold up there.
bill,
I want you to do this experiment in your home. Turn your oven on but leave the door open. Measure the temperature inside the oven and a few inches outside the oven. Now close the door so that the two thermometers are on different sides of the door. You will observe the temperature increases inside the oven and decreases outside the oven. That’s what a thermal barrier does.
If you put a thermal barrier between the surface and stratosphere that impedes the flow of energy from the surface to space you should observe an increase in temperature near the surface and a decrease in temperature in the stratosphere. And that is exactly what UAH observes. The TLT-TLS trend is +0.42C/decade.
Nate says:
Cooling means warming?
Yes Bill. Add insulation to your attic.
In winter, the mice who live in your attic will complain that its gotten too cold up there.
I am quite aware of the insulation value of a glass ceiling Nate. It confines convection.
bdgwx says:
bill,
I want you to do this experiment in your home. Turn your oven on but leave the door open. Measure the temperature inside the oven and a few inches outside the oven. Now close the door so that the two thermometers are on different sides of the door. You will observe the temperature increases inside the oven and decreases outside the oven. Thats what a thermal barrier does.
If you put a thermal barrier between the surface and stratosphere that impedes the flow of energy from the surface to space you should observe an increase in temperature near the surface and a decrease in temperature in the stratosphere. And that is exactly what UAH observes. The TLT-TLS trend is +0.42C/decade.
==========================
So you actually want me to close the door bdgwx? You aren’t happy with a gaseous thermal barrier? ROTFLMAO!!
Besides the laughter at the idea, I get the point. Just what I don’t get is how doubling it actually works. I hear talk about shoulders, then on the other side of the TEAM I hear talk about progressively cooling layers. All the talk about shoulders I get, but analysis is showing that’s a pretty minor effect. If doubling of CO2 in the open doorway is not doing anything, can then conclude that if we put it way up in the sky and chill its going to do something, right?
If so then it follows if I chill the air outside of room and double the CO2 it’s going to work as insulation. Do I have that right?
One thing at a time…we just want you to understand that increasing the effectiveness of a thermal barrier causes warming on one side and cooling on the other side all other things being equal.
The details of how thermal barriers work and how they target conduction, convection, radiation, or a combination of any of the three is certainly worthy of discussion, but you have to understand the basic principal of what a thermal barrier of insulation does before you dive into the details.
bdgwx says:
One thing at a timewe just want you to understand that increasing the effectiveness of a thermal barrier causes warming on one side and cooling on the other side all other things being equal.
The details of how thermal barriers work and how they target conduction, convection, radiation, or a combination of any of the three is certainly worthy of discussion, but you have to understand the basic principal of what a thermal barrier of insulation does before you dive into the details.
=============================
Like I don’t know that? I have done many insulation calculations in designing home insulation systems. I understand completely the effect and theoretical temperatures of various window surfaces all of which is directly transferable to greenhouse mechanics. For quite a few years I worked with various engineers to design greenhouse warming systems for both space heating and water heating. I have designed and built several radiant heating systems, I have a good grasp of what is actually understood about these types of systems. After doing it professionally for a number of years I changed careers but my interest was maintained and I continued to design and build the systems for personal use, use by family members and friends. In that capacity I continued to consult experts in the field for various projects and worked directly with one of the leading engineers in the field to design a radiant heating system. The type of system I exclusively worked on designing were those that used little or no external sources of power other than the sun. So don’t talk down to me like I don’t know what I am talking about. I am sure I have at least an order of magnitude more experience in the area than the vast majority of people who think they understand the greenhouse effect.
When you drill down into the details you will find two schools of thought on the matter that doesn’t violate the rules of known physics. Thus the real answer and its implications remain as an unknown since the one school of thought that actually could add up to substantial warming has never been validated. The other validated school of thought is either near or at its saturation level for CO2. But water vapor or clouds are not at or near there saturation levels and there really isn’t much disagreement on that. The other one is the James Hansen school of thought where earth is at risk of runaway warming and becoming like Venus via multiplying layers of insulation in the atmosphere. Personally I think its a bunch of malarkey. I believe you only get one bite at that apple and that bite is the validated school of thought.
I bet James Hansen never said what you claim.
ngstrms saturation argument from the year 1900 was discarded in the middle of the last century.
You have to repeat the calculation level after level.
I already explained it to you, remember?
This is how to send 80 W to space through four layers:
Layer Down In Up
0 0 400 400
1 320 640 320
2 240 480 240
3 160 320 160
4 80 160 80
Gee Svante here is his mea culpa. He can’t deny it as he published in his 2009 book and he had been saying that for more than 20 years before the book was published and here in 2015 he is admitting he was wrong.
https://youtu.be/jc47TDpVzFQ
Svante says:
ngstrms saturation argument from the year 1900 was discarded in the middle of the last century.
==================================
do you know why it was discarded?
Bill,
Home insulation is helpful as an analogy for understanding the GHE. But you do need to understand that ‘When you drill down into the details”, the GHE is very different. And those differences make it not nearly as simple as home insulation.
If your statement that “Personally I think its a bunch of malarkey.”
is based on your understanding of home insulation, well…thats not very reassuring.
Nate says:
Home insulation is helpful as an analogy for understanding the GHE. But you do need to understand that When you drill down into the details, the GHE is very different. And those differences make it not nearly as simple as home insulation.
If your statement that Personally I think its a bunch of malarkey.
is based on your understanding of home insulation, wellthats not very reassuring.
==============================
You are just paraphrasing what I said. I said you cannot produce the multi-layered effect in any greenhouse or laboratory experiment. Its never been done, never been seen to work.
Svante said the single layer model which I do ascribe to. . . .uh . . . .at least partially and significantly was discarded in the middle of the 20th century. Do you have any information on that? Since there is no information regarding the multi-layered effect.
“Since there is no information regarding the multi-layered effect.”
I already provided a link to you in previous artcle discussing the multi layer model.
bill hunter,
I lost the Hansen bet, you were right.
Thank’s for looking it up!
bill hunter says:
“do you know why it was discarded?”
Mainly you must repeat the calculation in layer after layer.
This is just a basic illustration, with 400 W input at the surface and complete saturation in three layers you get 160 W from TOA to space:
Layer Down In Up
0 0 400 400
1 320 640 320
2 240 480 240
3 160 320 160
Same surface input and more of the completely saturated gas you get 80 W from TOA to space:
Layer Down In Up
0 0 400 400
1 320 640 320
2 240 480 240
3 160 320 160
4 80 160 80
This is just the principle, please respond with one point at a time and avoid those confusing Gish gallops.
Svante says:
bill hunter,
I lost the Hansen bet, you were right.
Thanks for looking it up!
=============================
I like Hansen. He is just a bit kooky. But his heart is in the right place.
Nate says:
Since there is no information regarding the multi-layered effect.
I already provided a link to you in previous artcle discussing the multi layer model.
===================
My information I meant data/evidence not discussion. Plenty of discussion to be found.
bill hunter, some basics on band saturation:
https://tinyurl.com/ydyqyw6h
No need to wait, we already have that:
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQSAnnualTemperature1880-01.jpg
For those who amazingly hope it gets rapidly cooling, a look at Arctic sea ice always will help them going out of fantasy.
In January and February, the Arctic sea ice looked as if it would execute some plain recovery, and pass over the good old 1981-2010 mean around April or so.
But already in March we could see that the Arctic ocean simply is too warm to allow for a proper ice rebuild.
This is the recent data (up to May 26):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view
The same data, viewed as departures from the mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
J.-P. D.
binny…”But already in March we could see that the Arctic ocean simply is too warm to allow for a proper ice rebuild.”
According to your first graph, the ice extent in March is at a peak. I don’t see a heck of a lot of difference between that level and typical years. Note also that the ice extent dips in summer for a month then starts rebuilding.
Not a lot you can do when there’s little or no solar input most of the year.
Gordo has just learned that the Arctic sea-ice has an annual cycle. The extent peaks about late March and the minimum is (usually) near the end of September. As with all climate measurements, there’s a statistical range to the data and THIS GRAPH shows the 2 sigma range along with the recent extent. Because there’s no sunlight in Winter, there’s little change in Winter extent compared with that seen in September, though the thickness data appears to also show faster decline. Notice that the latest data is running below the 2 sigma range, similar to that seen in 2012, which resulted in the least end of melt season sea-ice in Bindidon’s graph.
swannie…”The extent peaks about late March and the minimum is (usually) near the end of September.”
My point is there is nothing we can do about it since CO2 has nothing to do with it. The solar input controls the ice extent.
Gordo wrote:
No doubt that the solar cycle’s insolation is the major driving force in the annual sea-ice growth and decay. But, that cycle is repeated every year, so it’s your responsibility to explain the loss of ice extend which is most obvious at the end of the melt season, without including AGW.
E. Swanson says:
No doubt that the solar cycles insolation is the major driving force in the annual sea-ice growth and decay. But, that cycle is repeated every year, so its your responsibility to explain the loss of ice extend which is most obvious at the end of the melt season, without including AGW.
===========================
Thats just Post Normal Science Meglamania! Actually it should be your responsibility to prove its AGW.
The reasons why are numerous. Its an onerous precedent that everybody must prove no harm before they are allowed to do anything. Vesting all choice in the government IMO ends private experimentation. And when the government is the single funder of science also. Its pretty much curtains for us all. Study your history and see how that attitude has affected human development.
Exxon had its own scientists and came to the same conclusion.
Svante says:
Exxon had its own scientists and came to the same conclusion.
========================================
what conclusion are you talking about? That post normal science is a POS?
Exxon Research and Engjneering Company’s Technological Forecast C02 Greenhouse Effect
by H. Shaw and P. P. McCall
https://tinyurl.com/y73ybuzq
“ExxonMobil’s understanding of climate change has tracked the scientific consensus on climate change, and its research on the issue has been published in publicly available peer-reviewed journals”.
https://tinyurl.com/yabzr7z5
Robertson
The ice extent in March is ALWAYS at a peak.
What you were not able to understand is that this peak in itself has no meaning.
Why did you not understand this, Robertson?
It is because you ignored the second graph.
binny…”What you were not able to understand is that this peak in itself has no meaning”.
Tell that to someone stranded out on the ice in March. The ice is solid from the northern Canadian shore to the North Pole, and ten feet thick on average. Who cares how much it melts during the brief summer.
The more the ice melts the lower the albedo. It’s pretty important to track.
bdgwx says:
The more the ice melts the lower the albedo. It’s pretty important to track.
=========================
we need to keep track of a lot more than albedo. melting the ice removes insulation over warm unfrozen ocean currents, spurs more water phase change activity of all types, varies clouds, increases convection, and widens the door to deep ocean mixing. since we have seen these cycles before are they internally or externally driven cycles?
Good point. Albedo changes are but one of many consequences of changing sea ice. Clearly it is important to track.
Indeed bdgwx. I think perhaps we should consider that feedback is negative.
I mean if feedback equals 2 times what the forcing is. . . .why doesn’t a 341w/m2 average insolation produce 782w/m2 feedback?
by that measure the mean global surface temperature should be like 93C!!!!
Bindidon, Swanson, and bdgwx all forget that Earth existed well before 1981. In fact, there is significant historical documentation that Arctic sea ice has been much, much less in many previous warming periods.
They just don’t like not getting to worry about something. Like bdgwx said, “It’s pretty important to track.”
IOW, “need more funding”.
Dumb, useless polemic.
Why do you write that?
You write that because you like to discredit people.
It’s not “polemic”, it’s “reality”.
I don’t discredit people, I let reality discredit people.
tim…”Please tells what this 2nd force is!
Gravity is applying a force with magnitude Gm1m2 / r^2 directed toward the earth”.
If gravity acted alone, the Moon would spiral into the Earth. There has to be another force involved or something representing a force. I think momentum is that pseudo-force.
When Newton described his laws of motion he referred to properties of a mass like inertia. He regarded inertia as a force resisting a change in motion. I regard momentum in the same way.
The momentum of a body depends on its velocity. How did it get that velocity? It came from a force accelerating the body. I think the energy imparted by that force is now in the body and acts like a force which resists the body losing velocity with the negligible resistance in space.
We need to look deeper into the meaning of force. You don’t need a force to calculate the orbit, but you do need the velocity defining momentum. Since that velocity was produced by a force, and the velocity is a part of the momentum, why can the velocity not be related to a force?
“I think momentum is that pseudo-force.”
Ok.
And physics will file your thought in the proper file.
“The momentum of a body depends on its velocity. How did it get that velocity? It came from a force accelerating the body. I think the energy imparted by that force is now in the body”
I can agree with about that much of your statement.
* momentum *does* depend on velocity.
* a force that existed billions of years ago (but not now!) accelerated the rocks that formed the moon.
* the moon *does* have kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2 + 1/2 Iω^2.
Beyond that, you are just rambling and wondering and conjecturing and making up stuff that is not part of physics.
ball4…”(Clausius) said nothing about entropy.
Gordon has been shown Clausius 2nd law many times before but cant comprehend Clausius Ninth Memoir in Mechanical Theory of Heat 1867 p.865 found for free on the internet since Gordon wont appeal to an authority:”
Nice cherry pick. I said Clausius said nothing about entropy when he defined the 2nd law in words. After he had defined it in words, he introduced the concept of entropy, defining it as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at the temperature T at which they occur. He was using the concept of entropy to describe a transformation from work to heat (or vice versa) and/or the transfer of heat from a hotter T to a cooler T.
He clearly defined entropy as a quantity of heat not as a measure of disorder. He did note that since most processes involve irreversible change that they represent a positive entropy. Since he defined entropy as a sum of heat in a process he was obviously still referring to the heat released by the reactions. He was not talking about disorder per se, which is an effect of an irreversible process.
Therefore his reference to the universe moving toward a maximum entropy was a reference to the heat given off by irreversible processes. All in all, that heat released can generally be converted to work or simply act as a transfer of heat from hot to cold.
“When a car slows down (hugely sub light speed) dv/dt is negative thus so is acceleration and rate of change of momentum”.
Why do we need to bring the change of momentum into it? The problem is described adequately by a change of velocity presuming the mass remains constant. In dynamics, we general refer to a change of velocity as acceleration. Momentum is a peculiar reference, like inertia, that describes an idea but doesn’t say a heck of a lot.
You might note that dp/dt = mdv/dt = ma = F. To reduce a momentum you can only reduce the velocity, without smashing the body, and since -mdv/dt = -F, a negative force must be applied. Why then can we not regard the momentum of a body as a form of force?
IDK, why can we not regard a penguin as a type of cat?
Regarding momentum as a “form of force” would be exactly the same as regarding velocity as a “form of acceleration”.
Velocity is RELATED to acceleration, but they are not the same.
Momentum is RELATED to force, but they are not the same.
If you don’t understand that the derivative of a function is different from the function itself, you simply don’t understand math or physics.
Hi Tim,
bill hunter has a new spin on the lunatic rotation issue.
“the movement of the cannonball around the earth will instantly create a force to move it to a position where the center of gravity is in line with the mean center of mass.”
Can the center of gravity be different from the center of mass?
If so, does the varying torque not sum to zero after a full circle, or could it stop an initial rotation.
What am I missing?
Some relativity aspect maybe?
I had to go back and look at that discussion. There are several subtle and interesting points (that are not always described accurately).
First of all …
“Tim said one could adopt any viewpoint, meaning the reasons are still beyond physics.”
No. I never said that all views were equally good, nor that the answers somehow are beyond current understanding in physics.
1) CoM vs CoG. Imagine a uniform tower 100 km tall. The center of mass would be 50.00 km up. But gravity is not uniform — it pulls harder on the bottom than the top. So the center of gravity would be like 49.9 km up. So if you somehow mounted the tower on a pivot 50.0 km up, an pulled it a bit to the side, it would tend to rotate back toward vertical.
2) For a uniform sphere (like a cannon ball), there would be no torque. The CoM vs CoG does not explain ‘tidal locking’.
3) Tides stretch objects. This is obvious for liquid water on earth, but even solid planets and moons themselves get stretched by tides. This is what is responsible for tidal locking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#Mechanism
4) Tidal locking is not really ‘locking’ — more like ‘gentle nudging’. Yes, this process does tend to synchronize the orbit and the orientation of the ‘moon’. If the moon is turning faster or slower than this, it will adjust the spin until it is synchronized.
5) For elliptical orbits, tidal locking does NOT lead to one face always aligned directly toward the earth (the ‘ball on string’ model). Tidal locking does NOT lead to one face always aligned directly forward (the ‘train car on a track’ model). Tidal locking DOES lead to one face always rotating ahead at a fixed rate relative to the fixed stars.
I agree with Tim on all those points. . . .except maybe the ”first of all”. The words ”current understanding” sort of smacks a bit of science by committee.
Perhaps I am being too practical oriented though.
My ignorance of astronomy, big bangs, instant creations, ever expanding already unlimited universes quite frankly is a bit too much for me to absorb so I have a bit of difficulty grasping whats practical about the concept of the moon rotating in reference to the fixed stars.
If Tim could provide a practical use for measuring the rotation of the moon from space I have been known to change my mind.
Just that a lot of argument about this comes from circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance. And challenging such fallacies typically generates ad hominems and strawmen.
This particular one on whether the moon is rotating or not seems as if could be a false dilemma fallacy reducing the choices down to yes or no when in fact its clear that the importance of that changes with ones frame of reference.
The world is full of gravity and its all around us yet it seems we only need to consider it when its close by. Heck being a skeptic I realize there is a school of thought about the sun moving about the solar system barycenter affecting solar activity and forms part of the basis of astrometeorology a questionable science at best.
B Hunter wrote:
It’s rather simple. The Moon always presents the same side when viewed from Earth. But, every 29.530588853 Earth days, there’s a Full Moon and at each successive Full Moon there’s an apparent motion of the stars seen behind it. That difference isn’t due to the motion of the stars on some “celestial sphere” (which was commonly believed before The Enlightenment as Church dogma claimed that the Earth was the center of the Universe), it’s due to the rotation of the Moon as measured against the distant stars.
swannie…”its due to the rotation of the Moon as measured against the distant stars”.
The apparent motion of the stars behind the Moon is related to the fact the Moon is moving in an orbital path while the Earth is rotating under it. Nothing to do with rotation about a local axis.
Gordon, you got it! These guys want to rob it from the orbit.
Gordon, you got it!
For once.
bill hunter
What a convenient comment, so far away from those usually found here.
*
” … so I have a bit of difficulty grasping whats practical about the concept of the moon rotating in reference to the fixed stars. ”
*
What exactly is your problem?
In this thread, you wrote lots of comments related to this concept of ‘fixed stars’, and didn’t seem to have any problem with them.
When you observe movements of celestial bodies, be it around other bodies or around their own center of mass: what could you do other than to take some point on heaven in order to measure, in time or in apparent distance, what you observe?
Isn’t the only reason to take stars as fixed points the fact that all other points aren’t fixed, and therefore will make any measurement of a movement with respect to them simply useless?
See Newton:
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.
Thus, if we observe the Moon wrt Earth or even the Sun, won’t we always make the same mistake?
*
Astronomer Copernicus told it pretty good as well:
https://tinyurl.com/y742b9kb
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
What exactly is your problem?
=======================
It seems to be only a potential problem.
DREMT is expressing the point of view of the engineering faculty and others in here primarily expressing the views of the astronomy faculty except I haven’t seen any astronomy faculty papers offered up in objection. Thus detailed analysis from that side beyond we just do it seems missing. Its defined that way and so end of story.
Granted Svante and Nate took a couple of shots at calculating the effect; which I found rather illogical. In short what they did was offer up two equations for two moments of inertia, one for the moons orbit and one for the moment of inertia of the spinning moon and offered the addition of the two equations as the way to calculate the total energy required to move the moon orbitally and spinning wise at the same time.
I could be wrong but that sounds like nonsense and the only argument beyond that they made was closely related to gee thats the way its done because Newton gave us those two equations. An argument that begs the question.
I provoked those calculations by saying looking at the equation for moments of inertia of mass times radius squared suggest both the mgr with the frozen bearings and the friction free bearings calculated to the same value and one of them definitely had the globes on the frozen bearings spinning and it was a matter of conjecture if the other one with the friction free bearings was spinning or not.
thus the ‘addition’ of the two calculations seemed illogical adding to their error if they made an error and stands as a logical error.
To suggest that the calculation of the orbital moment of inertia includes the moment of inertia for the globe spinning and perhaps the other one because of ‘loose bearings’ actually would need to have a minus sign instead as it might have a lower moment of inertia than calculated.
Yet both Nate and Svante used plus signs when logically the moment of inertia must include all the moments of inertia for everything spinning including the chalked circles, the globes and the infinite number of atoms in the entire mgr.
Now logically it seems if that is true to determine the moment of inertia of the entire orbital system all you need to do is calculate the moment of inertia for the orbit and add any additional spins. For the earth it would be Isubsynodic=masssubearth*radiussuborbitcogsunsquared minus Isubsynodic=massubearth*radiussubearthsquared*364
using sidereal substitute Isubsidereal for Isubsynodic and change the rotation number from 364 to 365. Should come up with same answer if the numbers are precise.
And thus the momentum associated with one spin per each orbit is compositely included in the orbit mechanics.
If thats true, then DREMT is right. . . . I will leave it at that and see if you have an coherent comments beyond adding one other tidbit of information.
for the moon the energy of 13 sidereal rotations equals the energy of 12 synodic rotations which supports the 364 and 365 used for the fixed numbers in the earths rotation case. For the moon you use 11 and 12 respectively.
It seems like a seamless effect. A quick scan of the solar system data shows that single digit difference exists throughout the solar system.
So using sidereal rotations instead synodic has no effect on the results. Now I would suggest looking closely at my math because thats not what I do regularly thus I was too lazy to actually do the math precisely on paper but instead just used a rule of thumb measure of whats happening. Caveat issued.
“The words ”current understanding” sort of smacks a bit of science by committee.”
That was not my intention at all. Merely that science progresses. At earlier points in history, “current understanding” could not explain …
* phases of the moon
* why compasses point north.
* the spectrum of hydrogen gas.
* the shape of the periodic table.
* the energy source of the sun.
Science moves forward. New experiments and new theories force us to adjust and improve our thinking.
“so I have a bit of difficulty grasping whats practical about the concept of the moon rotating in reference to the fixed stars.”
Science is not about “what is practical”, but simple about “what is”. It is about finding the simplest set of rules that accurately predicts some aspect of the universe.
There have been three ‘rules’ discussed here for our ‘tidally locked’ locked moon in its elliptical orbit.
A) One point always points straight forward along the orbit. (Train car on a track).
B) One point always points straight toward earth (Ball on a string).
C) All points rotate about some axis at a constant rate with respect to the ‘fixed stars’.
Only one of these can be correct, since they all give measurably different predictions about the motion of the moon. The *practical* answer is the one that is correct!
I would just note that science hasn’t exactly ‘smoothly’ progressed though progressed it has beyond just about everybody’s imagination except maybe Jules Verne.
There has been a lot more than a few major dents in the progress over time. I won’t start to list them as I don’t want to prejudice the conversation as the well known ones aren’t pretty at all.
tim…”Science moves forward. New experiments and new theories force us to adjust and improve our thinking”.
That is true much of the time but the current hysteria surrounding covid proves that certain factions in medical science are not only behind the times, they are spreading pseudo-science.
Unvalidated models are being used around the planet to predict the behaviour of a phantom virus and they have been horribly wrong. The virus has no precedent and there is literally nothing known about how it acts and who is vulnerable. These same medical types, put in charge, have deprived us of our democratic rights based on unvalidated models and unproved theories.
There is no reason whatsoever to conclude, based on model theory and untested hypothesis, that covid19 is a danger to general populations. It took them nearly 40 years to find that out about HIV even though diehards are still stuck in that pseudo-science. Will it take another 40 years of infringements on our democratic rights to find the same about covid?
I fear it will. In the early 20th century, there was a pellagra outbreak in the southern US. Although a government agent diagnosed it correctly as a dietary issue, it took medical science more than 30 years searching for a virus before it was discovered a B-vitamin deficiency was the culprit.
Despite our advances in science we have yet to discover a means of bypassing human arrogance and ego. A scientist is no good in general if he/she cannot get past their arrogance and stupidity.
Gordon Robertson
You have your statement wrong. You stated incorrectly: “A scientist is no good in general if he/she cannot get past their arrogance and stupidity.”
You should have correctly inserted your blog name into this statement and it would be correct: “Gordon Robertson is no good in general if he/she cannot get past their arrogance and stupidity.”
You are very arrogant and not very bright. A perfect combination for a Contrarian disciple. You accept the false teachings off all contrarians but are unable to understand any valid science, any experiments valid science is based upon, thousands of Electron Microscope photos of HIV. You need to change more than any scientist. The only bad scientists I know are the contrarians you love, like Peter Duesberg. Not at all scientific or evidence based. He just blindly pushes his disproven ideas. That is NOT science at all even though mountains of actual evidence and logical thought have proven him wrong many times you ignore all evidence against him and blindly accept his false teachings on the topic of HIV. Why?
Tim Folkerts, you must have studied “marketing”. You really know how to put together a “sales pitch”.
You start off with items 1) and 2) being correct, that’s the “bait”. Then you switch to your propaganda in 3) 4) and 5).
The old “bait and switch”.
Then you continue your marketing tricks by making up “rules”.
I bet you can fool a lot of idiots.
When you want to address science (like why force and momentum are not the same thing), I will be happy to interact.
Is there any specific sentence or equation or number I wrote that you consider wrong? We could start with that.
You didn’t offer any science. Read my comment. All you offered was your sales pitch.
And your “rules”, A, B, and C, are essentially all orbiting. You’re still marketing. Making up “rules” and getting them wrong is not science. It’s sales trickery.
We can’t expect to have actual fact-based debate with JD/Clint. He is only here to toss ad-homs, irritate people, ie troll.
That was his MO as Ge*ran and JD until he was banned, and it appears that it hasnt changed.
I’m not irritated by your lack of facts, Nate. In fact, that’s my point. You don’t have the facts. You just imagine things and proceed to make an idiot of yourself.
So, until you can come back with something that makes sense, you are banned.
tim…”When you want to address science (like why force and momentum are not the same thing), I will be happy to interact”.
A Coriolis force is referred to as a fictitious force because it does not exist. It appears to exist due to relative motion. However, it is useful in visualizing Newton’s Laws or applying them. Although momentum is not a force per se, it acts like a force, in fact, it is a potential force. If a body with momentum collides with another body it’s momentum will produce a real force.
I don’t see a problem with calculating the force required to stop the momentum and using it in the direction of the momentum to do a calculation. That’s what they do with Coriolis fictitious forces.
There is no harm in treating momentum as a force as long as it accurately represents the momentum.
The point is that something is acting as a force to keep the Moon moving in a straight line. Newton regarded that as an internal force. It acts in conjunction with the force of gravity to produce a resultant orbital path.
Gordo wrote:
Momentum (M) is not a force (F).
Recall that for Mass (m),velocity (v) and acceleration (a):
M = m x v
which is not the same as:
F = m x a = m x dv/dt
One may write the equations of motions when using a non-inertial, rotating reference frame (such as an Earth fixed one), by including a “Coriolis force”, but in an inertial reference frame such as that for an orbiting satellite, there’s no such “force”, other than gravity acting on the satellite to cause the orbital motion.
Thanks Tim!
“What am I missing?”
Independent thought.
Yes, I missed Tim’s first point, a perfectly balanced tower would return to upright position.
You missed having the capacity for independent thought.
Independent of logic, yes.
Your logic involves asking Tim and then accepting whatever he says without critical thought.
Don’t you think the tower example makes perfect sense?
Words said in response.
None.
Required.
This page right here is why aliens do not contact you
The latest movement from some of the “Spinners” seems to be to claim they don’t know what is meant by “on its own axis”.
After all this time!
DRsEMT, You Talking to ME??. You’re the one IGNORING well proven scientific REALITY, MORON.
Calm down.
They get both definitions messed up. They go back and forth. They can’t admit that their “holiest of holies”, NASA, has it wrong. The NASA ISS Flight Director got it right, but they can’t understand it. They probably think he is a traitor! (Swanson, would likely call him a “moron”, but not to his face.)
We get to watch idiots perform here regularly.
He’s just upset because he already inadvertently admitted that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-478156
The DRsEMT and Clint R trolls can’t understand that the fact that the Moon is tidally “locked” to the Earth does not prove that the Moon isn’t rotating once each orbit. Their arbitrary definition of rotation does not match that of physics. For example, DRsEMT refuses to identify the location of the Moon’s axis. If DRsEMT can’t locate that axis, how can it be proven to be not rotating about said axis? Apparently it’s either too complicated for their brains to comprehend or they are only interested in spreading falsehoods and disinformation to muddy the discussions here regarding climate change.
Swanson, “tidally locked’ has nothing to do with orbiting. You are so desperate. Orbiting is the simple motion of a train on a circular track, as even Tim Folkerts has admitted. The same side always faces the center.
Clint, you need to work on your reading skills! That is not what I have ever said.
We need an image. https://postimg.cc/LY6BwJV9
This moon has a highly elliptical orbit. It has become ‘tidally locked’ so that exactly the same face is always toward the planet at closest approach (and more-or-less faces the planet the whole way around). At closest approach we can define a set of coordinate axes fixed to the moon. The x-axis (the long arrow) is defined to point forward along the direction of motion, while the y-axis (the short arrow) points straight toward the planet. These two axes are perpendicular to each other. Affix then to the moon.
That was just setting up the scenario so we are all on the same page. Now comes the interesting part!
Which way will the axes be pointing at the second location on the image, when the moon has moved 1/4 of the total distance around the orbit?
>> Since you subscribe to the “train” model, you would say the red set of coordinates is right; the moon has turned 90 degrees total and the long x-axis arrow is still pointing straight ahead.
>> People who subscribe to the “string” model would say the green arrows are right; the moon has turned ~150 degrees and the short, y-axis arrow is still pointing toward the earth.
>> People who subscribe to the “spinner” model would say the blue set of arrows is right; the moon has turned significantly less than 1/4 of a revolution because it is traveled significantly less than 1/4 of the total period.
Nature will decide which answer is right. Not name-calling. Not wishful thinking. Not anyone’s intuition. Not false analogies.
Tim Folkerts, if your train makes an orbit on a circular track, are you claiming it is not orbiting?
(That’s going to be another good question for the next idiot test. “If something is orbiting, is it orbiting or not?”)
“Tim Folkerts, if your train makes an orbit on a circular track, are you claiming it is not orbiting?”
Nope!
I am claiming that it is “translating” around the track (its center of mass is following the specified path) and simultaneous “rotating” around its own axis at the same rate.
Your question is as silly as me asking “If a train car was mounted on a swivel so that one end of the car always pointed north, are you claiming that it is not orbiting?”
Everyone agrees that an orbit involves a path around a planet (or similar object). The question has always been “Does an orbit necessarily imply a specific orientation of the object, or is the rotation a separate issue?” As you correctly deduced in a different comment, the rotation is not effected by gravity that holds an object in the orbit, so the simplest (and ultimately best) answer is that rotation should be treated as a separate issue.
Tim Folkerts says:
I am claiming that it is translating around the track (its center of mass is following the specified path) and simultaneous rotating around its own axis at the same rate.
===================================
I suppose thats one way of looking at it. But don’t the calculations suggest then that all the little chalked circles and in fact each atom has at least one rotation accountable to the orbit also?
thats kind of where I tend to jump off the mainstream bandwagon. I suppose of anybody in here you could answer that mathematically the best.
I derived that from the thought experiment expressed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-479026
which was based upon merry-go-rounds with a series of globes on the perimeter where one mgr had the bearings on the globes frozen and the other had them loose and not rotating.
Both had the same Imgr=MmgrRmgr^2 calculation for the entire mgr equal to each other. However Nate and Svante said I needed to add the formula Iglb = 2/5 MglbRglb^2 to the calculation for the spinning globes. but since they were spinning on one mgr maybe I should start adding that in for each and every chalked circle as well and heck run that down to unique atoms.
Figuring there was nothing wrong with the mgr Io I could only accept that it must be a minus sign for a non-spinning globe,
Not sure if this was what Dr Madhavi was getting at because his formulas didn’t reproduce in my pdf reader but his verbal dialogue seemed to indicate that was the case.
Finally I haven’t fully researched this by any means but I have read that as objects spin down to tidal locking the lost spin energy becomes part of the orbital energy via the Rmgr variable.
Thus looking at the situation as simultaneous spins seems to lead to double counting for at least one spin per orbit.
Not anything one couldn’t adjust for but problematical from the aspect of characterizing what is happening. Interested in your analysis. I certainly can be persuaded otherwise.
Tim claims: “I am claiming that it is “translating” around the track (its center of mass is following the specified path) and simultaneous “rotating” around its own axis at the same rate.”
That is not orbital motion. That is both “orbiting” and “rotating about its axis”. Orbital motion is demonstrated by the wooden horse mounted on a carousel or merry-go-round. The wooden horse cannot rotate on it axis. To someone standing off the carousel, the horse “appears” to be rotating about its axis, due to the orbital motion. But, it is only orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
swannie…”…the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth does not prove that the Moon isnt rotating once each orbit. Their arbitrary definition of rotation does not match that of physics. For example, DRsEMT refuses to identify the location of the Moons axis”.
Since the Moon is not rotating it does not have an axis. The lunar orbital plane is inclined to the Earth’s solar orbit at about 5 degrees. If you follow the apparent lunar path across the night sky it roughly follows the apparent solar path across the day sky.
I have seen it claimed that the Moon’s orbit is perpendicular to the lunar orbital plane. That would incline it about 5 degrees to a line perpendicular to the Earth’s orbital plane. Since the Moon orbits on that lunar plane with the same face always toward the Earth, that suggests there is no rotational velocity about that axis.
Since the Earth’s gravitational field is operating along a radial line through the Moon, in order to keep that same face inward, the portion of the radial line through the Moon must always face in a radial direction. Under those conditions it is not possible for the near face to rotate about the axis since the axis is moving in a concentric orbit outside the near face.
Gordo wrote:
I agree that if the Moon were not rotating, it would not exhibit an “axis of rotation”. However, your assertion that “the Moon is not rotating” is falsified by observations against the background stars. And, I’ve never claimed nor seen it suggested that the Moon rotates around the Earth/Moon vector, i.e., the radial line between the two bodies.
The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, not on its own axis. The motion is “orbiting”, where the same face of the moon is always pointed towards Earth, like the train on circular tracks. “Axial rotation” is then separate and independent of this motion.
DRsEMT, “Orbiting” is not “rotating”, it’s translation of the Center of mass while experiencing gravitation forcing.
BTW, It’s not possible for the Moon to continue to rotate to face the Earth while also rotating along the Earth/Moon vector. Ever heard of angular momentum? You guys continue to ignore the fact that the Moon is not attached to the Earth, thus your MGR with chalk circles analogy is flawed.
The moon has orbital angular momentum only.
The Moon’s rotational angular momentum is 2.26e29 kg.m^2/s.
The Moon’s orbital angular momentum is 29e33 kg.m^2/s.
Swanson, in orbital motion, with no axial rotation, the same side of the orbiting body ALWAYS faces the center of the orbit.
In terms of the MGR, if you walk around it counter-clockwise, your left side ALWAYS faces the center of the MGR. The NASA ISS Flight Director explained this.
Does the NASA ISS Flight Director believe the Moon is rotating?
The Moon has zero angular momentum about its axis, bdgwx. So your “2.26e29 kg.m^2/s” is just the usual crap idiots come up with.
And if the NASA ISS Flight Director understands his own examples, then he knows Moon is not rotating about its axis.
Clint/JD said this previously:
“Well, you dont know anything about Moons offset, bdgwx. You have to rely on NASA. And we know NASA can be deadly wrong.”
But now an out-of-context quote from a NASA guy MUST be right??
But lets assume he 100% agrees with you.
If 9,999 astronomers and aerospace engineers and all their textbooks disagree with you, but you found one who guy who agrees with you, that proves what?
That you’re right???
That argument from us would crash in flames with you guys, as well it should.
Nate says:
But now an out-of-context quote from a NASA guy MUST be right??
But lets assume he 100% agrees with you.
If 9,999 astronomers and aerospace engineers and all their textbooks disagree with you, but you found one who guy who agrees with you, that proves what?
That youre right???
That argument from us would crash in flames with you guys, as well it should.
=======================================
Nate you haven’t provided all the textbooks of 9,999 astronomers and aerospace engineers. In fact you haven’t provided even one.
We provided Madhavi’s textbook on rotation and I just provided an article from a Harvard journal on the despinning of spin off spin on ones own axis providing the tilt to the moon you claimed couldn’t be explained any way other than spin on one owns axis. As your ideas one by one have gone into a death spiral and drilled a large hole in the ground. Which one do you want to see do that next?
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
“The moon has orbital angular momentum only.”
Really? You mean the Moon only has MVR of angular momentum?
Strange that a sphere of the same mass and radius as the Moon, at the same distance from the Earth, revolving at the same rate as the Moon, but attached to a massless rod, will have MORE angular momentum than MVR.
https://www.mwit.ac.th/~physicslab/hbase/tdisc.html
“We provided Madhavis textbook on rotation”
Madhavi’s textbook, like all others, agrees with the general laws of motion that we have been using.
Lets face it Bill, your education on this topic is lacking. It is no surprise that you are misunderstanding his book and try to spin it( ha!) in your favor.
I asked you for specific quotes from this book about the Moon, or that agree with you guys, and you could provide NONE.
We cite explanations of tidal locking that very clearly assume a rotating Moon, but you ignore or misunderstand these explanations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
“This is known as synchronous rotation: the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, although there is some variability because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular. Usually, only the satellite is tidally locked to the larger body.[1] However, if both the difference in mass between the two bodies and the distance between them are relatively small, each may be tidally locked to the other; this is the case for Pluto and Charon.
The effect arises between two bodies when their gravitational interaction slows a body’s rotation until it becomes tidally locked. Over many millions of years, the interaction forces changes to their orbits and rotation rates as a result of energy exchange and heat dissipation.”
“We provided Madhavi’s textbook on rotation”
Yes, Fig 2(b) to be precise. An object rotating about point O, not on its own axis, with all points of the object moving in concentric circles about point O.
And now, looking back at Tim’s full quotation of the NASA ISS director, I see that liar/dimwit/troll Clint totally misrepresents it.
He clearly supports the spinner POV.
Facts just dont matter when you can cherry pick them, misrepresent them, twist them…. IOW cheat.
What I don’t understand is the need to cheat in order to ‘win’ this argument?
“Yes, Fig 2(b) to be precise. An object rotating about point O, not on its own axis, with all points of the object moving in concentric circles about point O.”
Yes we have all seen this figure 2b like 47 times.
Showing a rigid body rotating is NOT relevant to the independently orbiting and rotating Moon, even after after 47 times.
Its just a (Red herring)^47
DREMT’s comments on walking around your friend (from the NASA guy) are more correct than DREMT’s descriptions of the more advanced rigid body dynamics text of Madhavi.
It’s just better to discuss walking around your friend with DREMT since clearly DREMT doesnt understand the more advanced Madhavi text.
Nate says:
June 6, 2020 at 12:15 PM
The moon has orbital angular momentum only.
Really? You mean the Moon only has MVR of angular momentum?
Strange that a sphere of the same mass and radius as the Moon, at the same distance from the Earth, revolving at the same rate as the Moon, but attached to a massless rod, will have MORE angular momentum than MVR.
https://www.mwit.ac.th/~physicslab/hbase/tdisc.html
=============================================
You need to explain that a bit more detailed Nate. An orbiting moon is going to have more momentum than one sitting still and rotating.
Nate says:
“Yes, Fig 2(b) to be precise. An object rotating about point O, not on its own axis, with all points of the object moving in concentric circles about point O.”
Yes we have all seen this figure 2b like 47 times.
Showing a rigid body rotating is NOT relevant to the independently orbiting and rotating Moon, even after after 47 times.
Its just a (Red herring)^47
====================================
The only thing infinitely ^47 is the impermeability and rigidity of your brain cells. Besides a large group of inculcated mercenary proselytizers, rigidity is ALWAYS relative. Thats what engineers do dumass. Determine the materials, processes, and designs necessary to ensure sufficient rigidity for an application.
And they are also not dumasses and believe rigidity is absolute. You guys started out here with a concept of a sphere with absolute rigidity and thus instantly believed in direct opposition to settled science that gravity cannot exert torque on a sphere. That is only a ‘textbook’ sphere dumasses!!!
No such sphere exists in the universe. You are victim time and time again to your inculcated belief system of perfect physics symbolism exactly like a bunch of religious bigots who insist the world is only 6,000 years old. . . .even worse than that because it hasn’t yet been determined that time is real.
People that get real jobs doing this stuff learn reality. You don’t need an engineering degree to figure out what you guys still haven’t figured out. In fact you don’t even have to go to school you can figure it out by experimentation.
So I have given you the experiment but you are just too freaking dumb to do it.
One more time: If it’s such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
“Besides a large group of inculcated mercenary proselytizers, rigidity is ALWAYS relative. Thats what engineers do dumass. ”
No the rotation of a rigid body around a point is not a good model for the Moon orbiting the Earth.
To support this hopelessly erroneous model, you go so far as to suggest that he vacuum of space has rigidity or transfers rigidity?
But somehow not between the Sun and the Earth, which spins freely?
OK.
“You need to explain that a bit more detailed Nate. An orbiting moon is going to have more momentum than one sitting still and rotating.”
Yep.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477750
Nate says:
Besides a large group of inculcated mercenary proselytizers, rigidity is ALWAYS relative. Thats what engineers do dumass.
No the rotation of a rigid body around a point is not a good model for the Moon orbiting the Earth.
To support this hopelessly erroneous model, you go so far as to suggest that he vacuum of space has rigidity or transfers rigidity?
But somehow not between the Sun and the Earth, which spins freely?
OK.
====================================
Right and mankind has been waiting now for 3,000 to 4,000 years for force to come along and rotate it on its own axis making it sufficiently rigid to withstand the forces on it for 3 to 4 millennia at least.
Non sequitur.
Looks like we drove Bill to the funny farm…
Strange how he fell for the moon drivel, hook line and sinker. Skeptics are gullible.
It’s just a really simple argument. You either get it or you don’t. You guys don’t. But we won’t let that bother us.
And science will move on without you.
Now please stop trolling.
Yes it does move on like blowing up your theory Nate of axial tilt and showing its actually a product of the earth’s gravity despinning the moon.
Youd like it if the rotating moon was my theory. Sorry it is just well understood physics.
Not the made up fake physics you’re pushing.
Nate says:
June 7, 2020 at 8:57 PM
Youd like it if the rotating moon was my theory. Sorry it is just well understood physics.
Not the made up fake physics youre pushing.
===========================================
Hmmmm, well understood via which physical law Nate? Its pretty easy to mistake ”often stated” for ”well understood” unless you actually are aware of a test that proves the pudding. Lets see if you are up to that? I will take silence as an admission you don’t understand anything about it including the basis of the debate, the origin of the concept of synchronous rotation, or the additional energy contained in synchronous rotation.
While at it be sure to solve this issue at the same time:
”In the early 1900s, we found that gravity wasnt a force at all. In Einsteins model, gravity isnt a force, but rather a warping of spacetime. Basically, mass tells space how to bend, and space tells mass how to move. General relativity isnt just a mathematical trick to calculate the correct forces between objects, it makes unique predictions about the behavior of light and matter, which are different from the predictions of gravity as a force. Space really is curved, and as a result objects are deflected from a straight path in a way that looks like a force.”
“Which law?”
Weve been over them a dozen times. You dont pay attention or care.
Conservation of angular momentum. Parallel axis theorem. Newtons laws.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477750
For lengthy physics discussion. Have fun with it.
Nate says:
Which law?
Weve been over them a dozen times. You dont pay attention or care.
Conservation of angular momentum. Parallel axis theorem. Newtons laws.
==================================
so your mathematics leads to the idea that when gravity creates an orbital angular momentum it must be canceled out by a spin angular momentum in order to keep the cannonball in essence flying straight because of the absence of torque?
Nate says:
June 8, 2020 at 4:32 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477750
For lengthy physics discussion. Have fun with it.
“so your mathematics leads to the idea that when gravity creates an orbital angular momentum it must be canceled out by a spin angular momentum”
You clearly dont understand the math or the comments.
Nate says:
“so your mathematics leads to the idea that when gravity creates an orbital angular momentum it must be canceled out by a spin angular momentum?”
You clearly dont understand the math or the comments.
=======================================
I asked a question Nate and you are dodging answering it. Why? Obviously because you don’t have a clue beyond extrapolation of what you have learned in physics to what you haven’t learned in physics.
Indeed I do understand completely that you are extrapolating.
“Obviously because you dont have a clue beyond extrapolation of what you have learned in physics”
You are correct that I have learned the physics behind planetary motion, and you have not.
You are misusing the word ‘extrapolation’ here. The correct word is ‘application’.
We are applying physics to planetary motion. This application of it has been proven over and over to work extremely well. Planetary positions and spacecraft trajectories can be predicted amazingly well.
So for you, a non-expert in this topic, to simply declare that we are going beyond what is understood, is simply an excuse for your ignorance, and not credible.
Nate says:
Obviously because you dont have a clue beyond extrapolation of what you have learned in physics
You are correct that I have learned the physics behind planetary motion, and you have not.
You are misusing the word extrapolation here. The correct word is application.
We are applying physics to planetary motion. This application of it has been proven over and over to work extremely well. Planetary positions and spacecraft trajectories can be predicted amazingly well.
So for you, a non-expert in this topic, to simply declare that we are going beyond what is understood, is simply an excuse for your ignorance, and not credible.
==========================================
You just keep doubling down on ignorance Nate.
First you have two concepts extrapolation and interpolation.
Application is a process of interpolation within the bounds of established theory. Extrapolation is a process of guessing what is out of the bounds of established theory.
And of course you don’t know the difference having said here:
”You have to be able to extrapolate.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-478087
So you get caught Nate each and everytime you start making up bullshit because you can’t keep your mouth shut about what you know nothing about.
Holy Shiitake Mushrooms Batman!
Is it not possible for you all to police yourselves with respect to addressing the topic of the original post?! Must it always devolve into some egotistical defense of subjectively esoteric opinions ad nauseam?! Why is there 2,500+ comments on the simple presentation of temperature data? There’s less than a dozen comments that directly address the original post, and the rest are “noise”.
The greatest mark of civilization is the individual’s ability to exercise restraint.
I certainly would appreciate a greater level of restraint from diversions, ad hominem snipes, and multi-faceted vendettas.
Please?
wizgeek, if you were truly “wiz”, you might realize that this Moon debate is directly related to the climate debate. In both, you have idiots struggling desperately to defend a corrupt “consensus”. In the Moon debate, the science is not as complicated. The science is as easy as a tether ball. It is easy to prove the “hallowed halls” wrong.
Where do you stand? If something cannot “rotate about its axis”, can it be rotating about its axis?
wizgeek…”Is it not possible for you all to police yourselves with respect to addressing the topic of the original post?!”
We covered the original topic then diverged to other topics. They are all tied together, however, with common themes running between them like alarmist vs skeptic, spinner vs non-spinner, etc. If you hang around long enough you will get it.
No disrespect to Roy, the owner/moderator, for us going off topic. To his credit he has allowed us a broad range of freedom to discuss scientific matters and as a result you get a good cross-section of scientific thinking here. On alarmist sites they have an interest in their dogma only.
On more academic sites you get a lot of math thrown around without an attempt to justify the math with subjective explanations. Newton was very subjective with his explanations as was Clausius with the laws of thermodynamics. Many people today rely on the math and don’t understand the physical aspects.
I stayed out of the already ongoing Moon rotation debate because I considered it off topic until Dr Roy Spencer himself made a post about the Moon and it’s rotation , then It seemed legit to chime in. since then the debate turned in totally demented “flat earth” type trolling.
Wikipedia has an accurate and simple explanation of orbit rotation and tidal locking.
Other than that, if you insist on acting and looking stupid, go on and keep arguing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
eben, you have made numerous troll-like comments about the debate. You haven’t really “stayed out”. You can’t understand the issue, so you oppose anyone discussing it. You don’t want to learn, so you don’t want others to learn.
Now, all of a sudden, you go to wikipedia to become an “expert” in 30 seconds?
If I imagine a spaceship that is say 100km in length circling earth at a constant velocity and altitude. Then gravity is simultaneously acting to pull both the very front of the space ship and the very back of the spaceship Towards the centre of the earth, no?
This to me would not cause a rotating effect about the centre/axis of the spaceship. Just a thought.
That’s exactly correct, Harves.
And if one end of the spaceship had twice the mass as the other end, it would still not result in rotation of the spaceship.
That’s exactly correct, Clint.
The earth is not causing a torque and will not result in any change in the rotation of the spaceship.
So if the spaceship were initially not rotating with respect to the stars, it would continues to not rotate with respect to the stars as it orbited.
If it was rotating 1 degree per minute with respect to the stars, the spaceship would continue to rotate 1 degree per minute (1 rev/6 hours) as it orbited (what ever shape or period that orbit might be).
If that orbit was circular with a period of 6 hours, the spaceship would be rotating 1 degree per minute with respect to the stars, and would be keeping one face directly toward earth and one face directly forward along the orbit.
If it was in a highly elliptical orbit with a period of 6 hours, the spaceship would … hmmm … be rotating 1 degree per minute with respect to the stars, but not keeping one face directly toward the earth, nor keeping one face directly forward.
Tim says: “So if the spaceship were initially not rotating with respect to the stars, it would continues to not rotate with respect to the stars as it orbited.”
Rotating “with respect to the stars” is not the same motion as “rotating about its axis”. You’re still trying to claim the MGR wooden horse is rotating about its axis. You can’t learn. That’s why you are an idiot.
You still don’t see that I am three steps ahead of you, not one step behind. You keep coming back to the wrong point.
Try this. If you are on the moon at its north pole and watch the stars, what will you see? You will see the stars rotating over head, right?
*WHY* would you see the stars rotating?
a) The star are rotating , but you and the moon are not.
b) You and the moon are rotating, but the stars are not.
c) Some combination of the moon and the stars rotating.
The moon is rotating. Period. This is the simplest and best way to describe the motion of the moon.
For circular orbits at constant speed, you can ‘get away’ with thinking of ‘cars on tracks’ or ‘balls on strings’. For elliptical orbits (ie all real orbits) these simple analogies do not correctly predict the motions.
d) Moon is orbiting around Earth, but not rotating about its axis.
It’s the same motion as the chalk circle on the MGR floor. Or any other orbiting object, such as your train on a track. It matters not if the track is a perfect circle, or an ellipse. The train is not rotating about it axis.
ClintR wrote:
There would be a torque induced on that spacecraft. That fact has been used by engineers to design satellite attitude control systems. It’s called >a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity-gradient_stabilization”>Gravity Gradient Stabilization. To be successful, the distance between the masses must be rather large, which might obtain with a 100km long “space ship”. Such a system would just be another example of a satellite controlled to face the Earth, which results in one rotation of the satellite per orbit, just like the rotation of the Moon.
Swanson, “Gravity Gradient Stabilization” is way over your head. You need to try to learn the basics first. DREMT’s “chalk circle’ is not rotating about its axis, just because that motion fools idiots.
Learn the basics, and then get back to us.
(After you’ve learned the basics, we’ll explain to you why your comment is just plain dumb, “JPD”.)
ClintR wrote:
I can hardly wait. BTW, you might talk to NASA about Gravity Gradient Stabilization before you mouth off.
I’m glad to see you’re anxious to learn, Swanson. The first thing to learn is the two motions. Fortunately, the NASA ISS Flight Director gave simple-to-understand examples:
“Imagine it this way — your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving (orbiting). If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
You might want to practice the two motions until you understand them thoroughly. Then we can move on to other things.
(Also, when you copy/paste apostrophes here, they end up as garbage. I learned that the very first time it happened to me. But, sometimes folks need help with their learning. So, if you copy/paste with text containing apostrophes, just delete and replace the apostrophes. See, now you’ve learned something.)
Let me fix that for you, Clint. Here is what the IS Flight director actually said. You know — the one who gives, accurate, simple to understand examples.
Fortunately, the NASA ISS Flight Director gave simple-to-understand examples:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving. If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating. If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. ”
Even your own source tells you that the ‘spinners’ are right!
Also from that source.
“The ISS rotates about its center of mass at a rate of about 4 degrees per minute so that it will complete a full rotation once per orbit. This allows it to keep its belly towards the Earth.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/10/03/how-does-the-iss-travel-around-the-earth/#f595853141f2
Yes Tim, if you walk 90 degrees around the MGR. you will then be facing 90 degrees from where you started. It’s called “orbital motion”.
ClintR wrote:
As TimF pointed out, you misquoted the man. And, I have a good understanding of the dynamics, having used them to build satellites back in the day. Most man-made satellites, including the NOAA weather satellites with the MSU/AMSU instruments, are intended to point toward the ground below and the problem we worked on was keeping them pointing there. Doing so REQUIRES the satellite to rotate once an orbit. They were not tidally locked, but were occasionally provided the appropriate amounts of torque to accomplish this goal. The results are not orbital motion.
I’m still waiting for your brilliant pearls of wisdom, not that I expect that you have any.
No Swanson, I didn’t misquote “the man”. In fact, I quoted him directly. But falsely accusing me is all you’ve got. That’s one of the reasons you’re an idiot.
But, we don’t have any other idiots claiming they built satellites. You’re the first!
Give me a list of the satellites you built, and state why you believe each is defying the laws of physics, and I will help you to understand.
Waiting for the list.
ClintR, If I told you, I’d have to kill you…
Seriously, this isn’t about me, it’s basic textbook satellite design.
Learn some Physics. Happy reading!!
No Swanson, you made it about YOU, by trying to make yourself the “authority” to appeal to.
So tell me what satellites you “built”. I’ve worked with many different such companies–Martin Marietta (formerly), Raytheon, Lockheed, etc. Tell me which programs you worked on and when. I know people there. Maybe I can verify your story.
You don’t want people to believe you were just blowing smoke, do you? Only idiots do that.
ClintR complains about my supposed “appeal to authority” while both claiming unverified work experience of some sort and also ignoring my post to a short version of test book material from NASA. If anyone cares, I received a MSME from Stanford in 1967, then worked for Lockheed for 4 years after that in the attitude control field. I doubt that you could find anybody left there who could verify my experience, not that it matters anymore.
OK Big Guy, now that I’ve answered your stupid question, what is your educational background and work history? If you refuse to answer, you are just another puffed up TROLL.
E. Swanson says:
Fortunately, the NASA ISS Flight Director gave simple-to-understand examples
As TimF pointed out, you misquoted the man. And, I have a good understanding of the dynamics, having used them to build satellites back in the day. Most man-made satellites, including the NOAA weather satellites with the MSU/AMSU instruments, are intended to point toward the ground below and the problem we worked on was keeping them pointing there. Doing so REQUIRES the satellite to rotate once an orbit. They were not tidally locked, but were occasionally provided the appropriate amounts of torque to accomplish this goal. The results are not orbital motion.
Im still waiting for your brilliant pearls of wisdom, not that I expect that you have any.
===================================
What you are failing to understand is that the need to occasionally provide torque for orientation comes from both not getting the last adjustment perfect and from any trace drag in the atmosphere on an object without perfect streamlining. Calling spinning or non-spinning is purely relative and the torque required to make an adjustment doesn’t change if you are spinning or not.
IMO, this is purely a semantical difference something I said at the very start. You arbitrarily select a point of view and something is either spinning or its not. Its fully dependent upon the perspective you choose.
However, there is a reality and I think that reality is whether or not gravity introduces exactly one additional spin upon capturing a spinning object in orbit. Some say no torque, some say two leashes that provides no net torque once the object is in orbit.
the difference in sidereal rotation and synodic is exactly one additional spin for the former. In half a year you earn one half of an additional sidereal spin. I said I am not sure of an answer but chose to pick one under the opportunity listed above of being able to make that choice and have no convincing experimental evidence to say yes or no. Only by posing the question and challenging the orthodoxy is it likely that somebody may be able to answer question. If we all join ‘THE CLUB’ it will never get answered except by pure accident. I would like to think that science advances mostly with a pure dedication and purpose combined with perseverance and curiosity.
B Hunter wrote:
No, the choice of coordinate system is not arbitrary. The rotation must be described/defined in coordinate system which is an inertial reference frame, a basic fact of physics which the “non-spiners” continue to ignore. In that coordinate system, a set of three gyros mounted on gimbals aligned with the three axes will remain their positions over time. That’s part of the definition of “inertial reference frame”.
Mount a single spinning gimbaled gyro with it’s axis pointing toward the Sun and you will witness the gyro rotating in it’s cage while continually pointing toward the Sun over 24 hours. That’s also the reason that any half decent hobby telescope for observing the stars includes an equatorial mount, which allows the scope to rotate around that axis to “remove” the Earth’s rotation from the telescope while viewing.
B Hunter, I need to correct something. Mounting a gimbaled spinning gyro pointed toward a star would result in the axis of the gyro continuing to point toward that star. You could even think of the Earth as such a device, since it’s axis thru the North Pole points toward the North Star. The Earth-Sun vector rotates once a year, so it can’t be used as part of an inertial reference frame. That fact also explains the extra rotation you mentioned.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, I need to correct something. Mounting a gimbaled spinning gyro pointed toward a star would result in the axis of the gyro continuing to point toward that star. You could even think of the Earth as such a device, since its axis thru the North Pole points toward the North Star. The Earth-Sun vector rotates once a year, so it cant be used as part of an inertial reference frame. That fact also explains the extra rotation you mentioned.
=================================
What you are saying is star navigation is useful because it changes very little day by day. Yet it changes.
Idiot Swanson got caught making things up.
First, he claimed that I misquoted the NASA ISS Flight Director. But, I did not misquote him. I copied and pasted his exact words. Why do idiots always twist the truth?
Second, Swanson claimed “And, I have a good understanding of the dynamics, having used them to build satellites back in the day.”
Swanson claimed he built satellites. So, I asked: “Give me a list of the satellites you built, and state why you believe each is defying the laws of physics, and I will help you to understand.”
After dodging, all he could come up with was that he had worked for Lockheed so long ago no one would remember. He never gave me ANY satellites that he had “built”.
Why are idiots such phonies?
Tim Folkerts says:
Thats exactly correct, Clint.
The earth is not causing a torque and will not result in any change in the rotation of the spaceship.
=========================
Tim you said that there was a different pull between one’s head and feet. If and only if perfectly aligned there would be no torque. We all feel it when we get out of alignment and are required to do an attitude adjustment.
A 200 foot long space ship following an orbit insertion path would be tilted in relationship to the planet. Of course it’s different for a perfect sphere which is never tilted.
Yep tie two leashes to it one at the nose and one at the tail and spin it around. Indeed no rotation.
Correct, bill.
As general point, yes.
But a spaceship or satellite would have station keeping abilities.
And applies anywhere in Earth orbit.
A satellite normally uses some kind rocket propellant for station keeping {cold gas/Ion thrusters} and when such propellant runs out
it becomes more or less useless. Or as it nears, time to go to satellite graveyard:
“A graveyard orbit is used when the change in velocity required to perform a de-orbit maneuver is too large. De-orbiting a geostationary satellite requires a delta-v of about 1,500 metres per second (4,900 ft/s), whereas re-orbiting it to a graveyard orbit only requires about 11 metres per second (36 ft/s)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit
In terms of Low Earth orbit, you flying in Earth atmosphere- one has a small amount of atmospheric drag. ISS needs to be periodically reboosted, though higher it flies, the less drag it has. But also flying between Earth and Van Allen belts, so unless you want to deal with radiation of Van Allen belts, you fly below them.
Something regarding ISS:
These low-frequency accelerations are associated with phenomena related to the orbital rate, primarily aerodynamic drag. However, gravity gradient and rotational effects may dominate in this
regime, depending on various conditions and an experimentís location relative to the vehicle’s center of mass (CM). A final source of acceleration to consider in this regime is venting of air or water from the spacecraft. This action results in a nearly constant, low-level propulsive force.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020066263.pdf
So, if we assume the space ship is initially not rotating, and given its entire length is acted upon equally by gravity:
1. Will it circle the earth?
2. Will the same side be always facing earth?
Will it circle the earth?
Orbital motion requires a balance of forces provided by two vectors, gravitational pull and velocity. If that balance is there, then an object will orbit. Orbiting does not mean it is actually rotating about its axis. “Rotating about its axis” is a separate motion.
Will the same side be always facing earth?
In pure orbital motion, yes. The NASA Flight Director described it the same as walking around another person. The person walking would always have the same side facing the person at the center.
“Orbital motion requires a balance of forces provided by two vectors, gravitational pull and velocity. “
Repeat after me.
“Momentum is not force. Velocity is not force.”
You could rightly say “Orbital motion requires ̶a̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ two vectors, gravitational pull and velocity.” But there is no “balance” between two forces. There are two distinctly different vectors with different units.
Try this: Newton’s 3rd law says (colloquially) that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. If “A” applies a force on “B”, F(AB) then “B” applies an equal force in the opposite direction on “A”, -F((BA).
* When my car tires apply a force in the backward direction on the ground due to friction, the ground applies an equal force in the opposite direction on my car tires due to friction. (This is what causes my car to accelerate forward from a stop sign.)
* When the earth applies a force inward toward the earth on the moon due to gravity, the moon applies a force in the opposite direction on the earth due to gravity. (This is what causes the moon to accelerate in toward the earth and follow a curved path.)
Now your turn. Explain your ‘second force”.
When ____________ applies a force on the moon in the ___________ direction due to ___________, the moon applies and equal force in the opposite direction on the [whatever you put in the first blank] due to [whatever you put in the third blank].
Tim, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
“I, (your full name), will refrain from mis-characterizing other peoples’ words.”
Now, in the future, do what you just swore to do.
As I’ve explained several times, the “second force” arises from the velocity vector. I NEVER said velocity, or momentum, was a force. That was you mis-characterizing my words.
Again:
Moon’s velocity gives it a momentum = mv.
Moon’s momentum can then provide a force = d(mv)/dt.
Please don’t twist my words. You just dig much deeper into your self-dug hole.
Clint, I agree with Tim that velocity and momentum is not a force. If it were a force the orbiting moon would accelerate, reach escape velocity and relatively soon not be seen again. You have a logical mind but you also need to get your terms right. I also have little physics education and have to refresh myself on the terms as while commonly used much of that common use does not translate correctly in physics.
bill, we all agree that velocity and momentum are not forces. Tim tries to twist my words because that’s all he has. He fools many idiots that way.
I’ll give you a pass this time, because you admit you “have little physics education”.
But try to learn, and ask relevant questions, before trying to lecture others about something you know “little” about.
First, It was Gordon, not Clint, who started the “momentum can be regarded as a pseudo-force”.
So that is on Gordon, not on Clint. My bad.
———————————-
However … these are Clint’s and these are wrong.
“Moons momentum can then provide a force = d(mv)/dt.”
“the second force arises from the velocity vector.”
As the moon orbits, no ‘second force’ arises. (Hint, if you have to put “second force” in quotes, you probably know it is not really a force.)
Forces are provided by OTHER OBJECTS.
If I release a rock, the EARTH provides a gravitational force.
That gravitational force CAUSES a change in momentum.
(The change in momentum does not cause a gravitational force.)
If the rock hits the ground, the GROUND provides a contact force.
That contact force causes a change in momentum.
(The change in momentum does not cause a contact force.)
^^ These are both equally true whether the rock is dropped straight down, or if it is released with some initial velocity.
———————–
Gravity provides all the force acting on the moon. (not counting, of course, insignificant forces like sunlight or solar wind or the occasional meteorite that hits the moon).
“Moons momentum can then provide a force = d(mv)/dt.”
“the second force arises from the velocity vector.”
Tim, at least you quoted me correctly, this time.
But, you didn’t state what you believed to be wrong with those two statements. “Arm waving” is not physics. Maybe you don’t understand Newton’s 2nd Law.
“But, you didn’t state what you believed to be wrong”
Umm … read the post!
Forces arise from interaction with other objects, bit from the object’s own velocity.
Forces cause changes in momentum. Changes in momentum do not cause forces.
As I suspected, you do not understand Newton’s 2nd Law. Let me see if I can help.
F = ma
F = d(mv)/dt
The above 2 equations are typically what you see on the internet. But, what they didn’t teach you, in your marketing class, is that the equations go both ways.
ma = F
d(mv)/dt = F
That’s why you can not stand in front of a speeding semi-truck. But, you’re welcome to do that experiment. I think one of the idiots, maybe you, stated that “F” would be zero, since the derivitive of a constant is zero. So there’s no way the truck can hurt you, in your incompetent physics.
Make sure someone makes a video of your experiment.
We could get into a big philosophical discussion about “cause and effect”. Does force ’cause’ acceleration? Does acceleration ’cause’ force? Do they coexist, with neither ‘causing’ the other?
Most would say that a force ’causes’ an acceleration; that a force causes an acceleration.
But we don’t need to even have that conversation!
That F = dp/dt = F force only occurs when the truck hits you. It is not there all the time supplying a force on you.
Similarly, that F = dp/dt = F force would only exist if the moon hit something. It is not there all the time supplying a force on the moon.
Gravity IS always applying a force. That single force explains the orbit of the moon. Period.
What, no experiment? You’re not going to stand in front of an oncoming semi to promote your bogus sales pitch?
Whatever happened to “F = 0”.
We need to see the semi-truck experiment. Show us you believe in your own propaganda.
ClintR, F = d(mv)/dt = 0 until truck contact THEN you experience a nonzero dv/dt in the experiment thus nonzero F and a.
The moon contacts nothing so for moon v is constant thus F = d(mv)/dt = 0 in the direction of v.
Only one major force acting on moon = gravity keeping the moon in orbit of earth and rotating on its own axis about N,S poles equidistant from equator since its formation out of a rotating cloud of stuff.
Tim, as you get ready for your “F = 0, oncoming-semi” experiment, consider satellites that are impacted by atmospheric drag will fall to Earth. Gravity does not keep them in orbit.
“As I’ve explained several times, the “second force” arises from the velocity vector. ”
What is this force? What direction is it? How would you calculate its value? Since we are talking about the moon, supplies the answers for the moon.
I’ll go first.
The first force is the force of gravity.
The direction is straight toward the earth.
The magnitude of the force is
F = G * m(moon) * m(earth) / r^2
= (6.67E-11 N/kg^2)(7.35E22 kg)(5.97E24 kg)/(3.84E8 m)^2
= 2.0E20 N
Furthermore, the force required for circular motion is
F = m v^2/r
= (7.35E22 kg)(1020 m/s)^2/(3.84E8 m)
= 2.0E20 N
Gravity supplies the exactly force required for circular motion! Nothing more and nothing less is required for the moon to orbit the earth.
***************************
Your turn ….
The second force is _____________
The direction is ____________________
The magnitude of the force is _____________
ball4…”The moon contacts nothing so for moon v is constant thus F = d(mv)/dt = 0 in the direction of v.
Only one major force acting on moon = gravity”
What is the momentum that keep the Moon moving at a constant linear velocity? Newton regarded it as an internal force. He regarded mv as a force that resists a change in its velocity, and that’s what it is. It’s similar to inertia, which Newton defined as an internal force that opposes an applied force.
However, you could not create a vector diagram with gravitational force = mg and momentum = mv because they don’t have the same units. So what do you do? You find units that can match as in velocities over a time range.
It’s easier to solve the problem using velocities and accelerations but there’s nothing stopping you treating momentum as a fictitious force and using it as a vector quantity with f = mg.
There are other factors in a collision such as impulse and elasticity. If the Moon collided with another body of equivalent size, or greater, would it bounce off like a snooker ball or would it bury itself in the larger body. If it did, it would deliver a tremendous real force that would be proportional to mv.
So calculate what that real force would be and use it as a force vector in lieu of momentum. I’ll bet they’d give the same orbital resultant as you have now.
One might ask what inertia means. Since it is regarded as a force opposing an applied force, it’s equation should be f = ma as well with a vector of opposite sign. Inertia can apply to a body in motion as well.
If momentum is regarded as a force that keeps a body in motion at a constant velocity, one should be able to treat it as a potential force. Both inertia and momentum are natural phenomena and I think we have confused the reality by trying to apply math to them.
A photon is defined as having momentum and no mass. Figure that one out. If p = mv and m = 0, what is that definition saying?
“(Newton) regarded mv as a force that resists a change in its velocity”
Newton did not regard mv as such Gordon. I got a laugh out of that. Thx but mv is not force.
“If momentum is regarded as a force”
Momentum is not regarded as a force.
“If p = mv and m = 0, what is that definition saying?”
If it bothers Gordon that a particle without mass m can carry momentum this is because Gordon is stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is momentum, a property complete in itself and not always the product of mass and velocity.
Missed a tag, worth writing again: “(Newton) regarded mv as a force that resists a change in its velocity”
Newton did not so regard mv Gordon. I got a laugh out of that. Thx but mv is not force.
“If momentum is regarded as a force”
Momentum is not regarded as a force.
“If p = mv and m = 0, what is that definition saying?”
If it bothers Gordon that a particle without mass m can carry momentum this is because Gordon is stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is momentum, a property complete in itself and not always the product of mass and velocity.
Bravo Tim!
It looks like you’ve found your missing “second force”.
CliintR says:
bill, we all agree that velocity and momentum are not forces. Tim tries to twist my words because thats all he has. He fools many idiots that way.
Ill give you a pass this time, because you admit you have little physics education.
But try to learn, and ask relevant questions, before trying to lecture others about something you know little about.
=====================================
Apparently I understand it better than you. An orbit is caused by the combination of something traveling at a steady speed and an acceleration force. Two forces cannot end up as an orbit. They end up as an accelerating movement in a straight line on the bisecting angle between the two forces.
Momentum is related to mass. Its potential of being a force is wholly related to its mass. In this case mass is not a factor. Only velocity of the object matters as gravity doesn’t care about mass. And velocity without mass has no potential force.
Indeed the object that will orbit has mass and it has gravity and its force of gravity will move the object that its going to orbit giving arise to the concept of a barycenter, and point in space about which both objects will rotate.
So momentum may be a psuedoforce, though thats the first time I have heard it described that way. But it has zero to do with orbits.
bill, I believed you when you admitted you had “little physics education”.
You didn’t need to prove it.
ClintR says:
bill, I believed you when you admitted you had little physics education.
You didnt need to prove it.
========================================
Gee Clint that would be an easy argument for you to win. All you need to do is provide the textbook references I may have missed.
A big drop in temp for May?
All the dominoes seem to be falling in place.
Low equatorial ocean temps .
AH Global Temperature Update for May 2020:
Prediction under +0.30 deg. C.
How low will it go?
+0.25C is my guess. That would be a -0.13C drop from April.
Would be a good start. Hopeful for a bigger drop.
svante…”Well its: dT = λ*5.35 ln(C/Co)”
That’s modelling bs. There is no hard science to back that equation, a context in which physicist David Bohm would call the equation garbage.
“There is no hard science to back that equation”
Unfortunately for Gordon, there is. The hard science is just beyond Gordon’s comprehension.
Question for ClintR, DREMT, bill, etc….what would convince you that the Moon is rotating? What observation or experiment do you propose that would falsify your hypothesis that the Moon is not rotating?
The question is whether or not it is rotating on its own axis.
And what experiment do you propose to test that?
I propose that you first learn to understand our position. You currently do not, as your comments demonstrate.
To understand, just re-read through the previous 2000 comments.
Was it mentioned how you would test the hypothesis “The Moon is not rotating” in any of the previous 2000 comments? If so maybe you could be kind enough to restate it again?
Sigh.
Is this a guessing game?
Ok my guess is you test the “moon is not rotating” hypothesis by placing a series of observers on Earth such that at least one can observe (either via reflected visible light or radar echoes) the face of the Moon pointed at those observers. If the face of the Moon is different at any point in time for any observer then the hypothesis is false right?
Do you agree?
Are you aware that there has been an argument over whether the moon is rotating on its own axis or not for at least a hundred years?
No. I was not aware of that. But…again…because you use a different definition of “rotation” than everyone else I’ll need to understand what concept you are referring to before I can acknowledge what the argument is that you speak of. I propose you restate what concept you speak of without using the word “rotation” or any of its derivatives. Or as an alternative you could adopt the definition agreed upon by everyone else.
Oh…is the procedure I posed at 1:52p sufficient to test your hypothesis “the moon is not rotating” whatever it is that you mean by “rotating”?
For instance, Nikola Tesla argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis back in 1919.
And I think it is only fair that the same challenge be placed on me. To test the hypothesis that the Moon is rotating I propose 1) placing a stationary observer at a lunar pole that plots the movement of stars and 2) placing a stationary observer near the lunar equator that plots of the timing of day/night cycles. If the stars remain stationary and if the day/night cycle is 365.25 days (182.6 day lit and 182.6 days unlit) then I will be convinced that the Moon does not rotate.
I think what you are going to find is that the stars return to their same position every 27.3 days and that the day/night cycle is 29.5 days.
If you think we would argue differently, then you still do not understand our position.
Do you think my proposed experiment is adequate to test the hypothesis that the Moon is rotating then?
No, because I agree that the stars would return to their same position every 27.3 days and that the day/night cycle is 29.5 days.
You just do not get it. And you never will.
Ok yeah. So we agree with the phenomenon. It’s just that you use different definitions “rotating” and “not rotating” than everyone else.
We say 27.3 days is the “sidereal rotation period of the Moon”. What word or phrase do you use to describe that same phenomenon?
#2
The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, not on its own axis. The motion is “orbiting”, where the same face of the moon is always pointed towards Earth, like the train on circular tracks. “Axial rotation” is then separate and independent of this motion.
So what do you call the 27.3 day period?
The sidereal orbital period, or the sidereal month.
Gotcha. So the same concept for Earth (stars return to their same position from the vantage point of the N or S pole) would be a period of 23.93 hours. Do you call that Earth’s sidereal orbital period or sidereal month?
The Earth is rotating on its own axis. 23.93 hours is a sidereal day.
Gotcha. So the same concept (stars return to their same position from the vantage point of a pole) for the Moon is called the sidereal orbital period or sidereal month and for the Earth it is just called the sidereal day. Do you have a matrix that you use for the term/phrase for the other astronomical bodies in the solar system? It sounds like we’ll need that matrix since different terms/phrases are used for the different astronomical bodies. Much appreciated if you could provide that…
I am not making up the terms, bdgwx:
https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/lunar_sid_syn.html
That link is discussing the position of one body along its orbital plane wrt to another body and the fixed stars. The amount of time it takes the body to return to the same point is what they call the sidereal orbital period or sidereal month.
But that is a different concept from what we are discussing. What we are discussing here is the position of the stars from the vantage point of an observer at one of the body’s poles.
For the Earth…the former concept has a period of 365.25 days and the later concept is 0.997 days.
For the Moon…the former concept has a period of 27.3 days and the later concept is 27.3 days.
Are you saying that you apply “sidereal orbital period” and “sidereal month” to both concepts?
No.
So maybe fill in the blanks…
1. The amount of time it takes for the stars to return to the same position from the vantage point of an observer at a lunar pole is 27.3 days and this is called ___.
2. The amount of time it takes for the Moon to return to the same position along its orbital plane wrt to the Earth and fixed stars is 27.3 days and this is called ___.
3. The amount of time it takes for the stars to return to the same position from the vantage point of an observer at an Earth pole is 0.997 days and this is called ___.
4. The amount of time it takes for the Earth to return to the same position along its orbital plane wrt to the Sun and fixed stars is 365.25 days and this is called ___.
For me, NASA, other reputable astronomers, and pretty everyone else we fill in the blanks like…
1. sidereal rotation period or sidereal day
2. sidereal orbital period or sidereal month
3. sidereal rotation period or sidereal day
4. sidereal orbital period or sidereal year
I use the same terminology, except for when an object does not rotate on its own axis.
For me, NASA, other reputable astronomers, and pretty everyone else we fill in the blanks like
1. lunar sidereal rotation period or lunar sidereal day
2. lunar sidereal orbital period or lunar sidereal month
3. earth sidereal rotation period or sidereal day
4. earth sidereal orbital period or sidereal year
No difference bdgwx what are your trying to get at?
He does not actually have a point, he is just desperately seeking a gotcha moment.
Apparently nobody talks about a lunar sidereal year despite the solar system moving about 4.5 billion miles around the galaxy (distance traveled by about 7.7 earth orbits or 3000 moon orbits about the earth), the error is so small because of the vast distances involved its just ignored. Just sweep the dust under the rug. Its a big concern to me because I get my travel allowance by the mile.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
He does not actually have a point, he is just desperately seeking a gotcha moment.
=================================
Yep I spotted that right off. He doesn’t understand the non-spinner argument so he is fishing.
So if the moon keeps the same face to earth and revolves around the earth every 27 days,
And Ganymede revolves around Jupiter every seven days, also keeping the same face to Jupiter,
So they are both not rotating, but they both have sidereal rotation rates of 27 and 7 days respectively.
So Zero is different around Jupiter than it is around earth, and I could add the rest of the synchronous moons to the list.
The non-spinners position is bankrupt.
blob gets confused easily.
But an observer on the Moon can see all sides of Ganymede, and an observer on Ganymede can see all side of the Moon.
How is that possible if both of them are not rotating?
Maybe DREMPTY can figure out how he can explain that to me.
They are orbiting their respective bodies, which are also orbiting the sun.
“I use the same terminology, except for when an object does not rotate on its own axis.”
IOW I accept all the facts that astronomy has found, except when they interfere with my belief. Then Astronomy has gotten it wrong.
Sounds like religion to me..
#2
They are orbiting their respective bodies, which are also orbiting the sun.
bobdroege says:
So if the moon keeps the same face to earth and revolves around the earth every 27 days,
And Ganymede revolves around Jupiter every seven days, also keeping the same face to Jupiter,
So they are both not rotating, but they both have sidereal rotation rates of 27 and 7 days respectively.
So Zero is different around Jupiter than it is around earth, and I could add the rest of the synchronous moons to the list.
The non-spinners position is bankrupt.
======================================
Wrong sidereal rotation rates have to be assigned an axis. Once you assign the moon’s rotation to the COG of the earth, the sidereal rotation rate on that axis is 27 days and on the moon’s own axis zero.
Once you assign ganymedes rotation to the COG of the Jupiter, the sidereal rotation rate on that axis is 7 days and on Ganymede’s own axis zero.
Zero is the same for both.
DREMPTY,
I am trying to talk about spinning, not orbiting, two different things.
Ganymede is spinning on its axis, while it is orbiting Jupiter, while both are orbiting the Sun.
Same for the Moon, it is spinning on its axis, as it orbits the Earth, while both orbit the Sun.
You are saying both the Moon and Ganymede are not spinning because they both keep the same face toward the planet they are orbiting.
Sorry Bill,
Sidereal means with respect to the distant stars.
Try again.
bobdroege says:
June 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM
DREMPTY,
I am trying to talk about spinning, not orbiting, two different things.
===================================
Call it what you want.
Find a big clock take the hour hand off mount a bicycle seat in its place. sit on the bicycle seat and hold the baseball out on my straight arm. hold the baseball between your thumb and index finger with your thumb and index finger forming the two ends of an axis going through the baseball. Turn on the clock. oR DONT TURN ON THE CLOCK. Now take your other hand and gently turn the baseball between your thumb and baseball in a manner that keeps the painted face towards you.
Bill,
You need to read what you cut and pasted again.
It doesn’t make any sense.
If the baseball is held by your arm, how can I turn it between my fingers.
Proofread. proofread, prrofread!
bob is indeed easily confused.
bobdroege says:
June 4, 2020 at 6:26 PM
Sorry Bill,
Sidereal means with respect to the distant stars.
====================================
Glad you finally got that.
Apology accepted.
Yeah, but I am sticking to the original question, that being, does the Moon rotate on its axis or not.
I don’t change the problem to a merry-go-round, or a clock with the moon being attached to the axis of the clock or other such false analogies.
It’s fun to read each and every attempt to mistakenly model the earth moon system.
The spin determines the axis that the body is rotating around.
And a body can only spin around one axis.
What’s that you say Bill?
“Wrong sidereal rotation rates have to be assigned an axis. Once you assign the moons rotation to the COG of the earth, the sidereal rotation rate on that axis is 27 days and on the moons own axis zero.
Once you assign ganymedes rotation to the COG of the Jupiter, the sidereal rotation rate on that axis is 7 days and on Ganymedes own axis zero.”
You just “assigned” the moon’s sidereal rotation rate to the center of gravity of earth.
And then you “assigned” Ganymedes sidereal rotation rate to the center of gravity of Jupiter.
That’s all kind of messed up.
The moon rotates every 27 days with respect to the distant stars.
Ganymede rotates every 7 days with respect to the distant stars.
But the non-spinner argument is that they both do not rotate.
Morally, Scientifically, and in every respect, bankrupt.
bobdroege says:
But the non-spinner argument is that they both do not rotate.
Morally, Scientifically, and in every respect, bankrupt.
==========================================
No Bob the non-spinner argument is that the moon rotates as an integral part of the moon’s orbit around the earth.
You ignorantly want to eliminate the orbit so you can eliminate the rotation that is caused by the orbit. You want to misstate what we are saying because it is in your argument that is bankrupt and for the life of you you don’t want to take the test that would prove us wrong because you already know you can’t do it.
Morally bankrupt?????? ROTFLMAO! Sorry Bob that we are violating the tenets of your religion, but this is a science discussion not a religious discussion.
Bill, stop being obtuse
“You ignorantly want to eliminate the orbit so you can eliminate the rotation that is caused by the orbit.”
Nope, I do not want to eliminate the orbit, I just want to clarify that there are two things going on.
Rotating
and
Revolving or orbiting.
bobdroege says:
June 5, 2020 at 5:21 PM
Bill, stop being obtuse
“You ignorantly want to eliminate the orbit so you can eliminate the rotation that is caused by the orbit.”
Nope, I do not want to eliminate the orbit, I just want to clarify that there are two things going on.
Rotating
and
Revolving or orbiting.
========================================
Yes I would want to do the same thing. So the only thing left to do is determine if rotating is consistent with the known revolving or orbiting when the same face is continually presented to the revolving or orbiting axis.
easy peasy
Yes, it’s easy. Just run bob’s simple basketball demonstration and consult Madhavi’s text.
Of course, there are those who are even more easily confused than blob.
yep!
bdgwx, you refuse to understand/acknowledge the difference between the two motions.
That’s why you’re an idiot.
I mentioned two motions in my post. The motion of the stars from an observation point at a lunar pole and the motion of the Sun from an observation point at the lunar equator. What do you think is different about those motions?
Birds flying and fish swimming are motions too, idiot.
You can’t understand the simple examples provided for the motions being discussed.
bdgwx says:
June 1, 2020 at 11:10 AM
I mentioned two motions in my post. The motion of the stars from an observation point at a lunar pole and the motion of the Sun from an observation point at the lunar equator. What do you think is different about those motions?
================================
So what is the point? If you fix the moon at the stars the other perspectives will all change, you will see rotation from all the other points earth and sun. Change it to earth, and you see rotation from the sun and space. Change to the sun and you see rotation from the earth and space.
bill said: So what is the point?
To provide a clear and concise definition for “rotation” that can be applied to any astronomical body such that any use of “rotation” mutually agreed to refer to the same concept.
bill said: If you fix the moon at the stars…
Hmmm…not sure what you mean. There is no observational vantage point on the Moon in which the stars do not appear to move. If you try to arbitrarily create such a lunarcentric model then you’ll get confusing and even contradictory results for the movement of the Sun and Earth. It’s the same problem the geocentric model had why it was abandoned in favor of the Copernican model.
bdgwx says:
June 1, 2020 at 3:41 PM
bill said: So what is the point?
To provide a clear and concise definition for rotation that can be applied to any astronomical body such that any use of rotation mutually agreed to refer to the same concept.
bill said: If you fix the moon at the stars
Hmmmnot sure what you mean. There is no observational vantage point on the Moon in which the stars do not appear to move. If you try to arbitrarily create such a lunarcentric model then youll get confusing and even contradictory results for the movement of the Sun and Earth. Its the same problem the geocentric model had why it was abandoned in favor of the Copernican model.
===========================================
Physics by committee? Near as I can tell thats already been done.
the discussion here is in regards to how it all came about and potentially what the moon would do it released from its orbit. So far you been lurking around trying to find an inconsistency that doesn’t exist.
Solving the issue with geocentrism was different. Nobody on the non-revolving moon bandwagon is suggesting the earth/sun/stars are rotating around the moon
Nobody is saying the moon doesn’t rotate either. it does. it rotates around the earth. Do you have a problem with that?
Exactly, bill. That is why I am always keen to stress the on its own axis part.
“Do you have a problem with that?”
ClintR does as his clip explains “that” is orbiting not rotating:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-480208
#2
Exactly, bill. That is why I am always keen to stress the on its own axis part.
That’s easy, bdgwx. If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all of its sides from Earth.
But, we only see one side.
Idiots get so confused about “inertial (idiot) space”. They believe because something “appears” to be rotating about its axis, it is actually rotating about its axis. That’s why they’re idiots.
It’s the same physics as the DREMT’s “chalk circle”, which originated the “idiot test” which proved you, and others, are idiots.
Thank you. That clears your position up for me. You define rotation differently than everyone else. The phenomenon you call “rotating” is what everyone else calls “not tidal locked”. And the phenomenon that everyone calls “tidal locked” you call “not rotating”.
Wrong again, idiot.
“Tidal locking” has nothing to do with the subject. They claim Mercury is “tidally locked”, yet rotates about its axis.
You keep throwing things on the wall, hoping something will stick. What you don’t realize is you can’t even hit the wall.
You’re an idiot.
A name calling Clint R proves you have made a good summary bdgwx 10:57am.
Disbelieving because something “appears” to be rotating about its axis, it is actually rotating about its axis caused an unfortunate prior screenname here to lose an arm when sticking it into an airplane propeller that only “appeared” to be rotating.
There is no safe test that will ever convince ClintR, DREMT, (and their former screennames) and probably bill that they have reality reversed. As you write, they will always have it backwards. It’s their personal world view.
Truth is if some object is not rotating on its own axis, then the object is just translating. DREMT has confused “rotation” with “rectilinear translation” and will never understand text book rigid body dynamics as proven by the experimental videos we each posted.
bdgwx has admitted he’s proud to be an idiot.
Try to keep up.
Maybe I should have clarified then…when I say “tidal lock” I should have said “1:1 spin-orbit tidal lock”.
The phenomenon you call “not rotating” is the same phenomenon everyone else calls “1:1 spin-orbit tidal lock”.
The phenomenon you call “rotating” everyone else calls “not in a 1:1 spin-orbit tidal lock”.
I’m curious though…how do you generalize your “rotating” and “not-rotating” definitions to other astronomical bodies? For example, how do you determine if the Sun is “rotating” using your definition? Do you always you the perspective of a stationary observer on the Earth?
Yes bdgwx, keep “clarifying”. Keep slinging anything you can find on wikipedia. It just reveals you don’t have a clue about the issue.
Now you’re off on another distraction, trying to use the Sun for more of your tangled logic.
Appears so bdgwx. For example, if Hubble were staring at a distant galaxy in rectilinear translation in earth orbit, that would be called Hubble “rotating” on its own axis to do so in ClintR, DREMT worldview because Hubble would then present all its faces to an Earth observer.
ISS is “rotating” on its own axis station keeping for same face pointed to earth but in ClintR, DREMT world view, ISS is “not rotating” on its own axis because it keeps the same face to earth as does the moon.
Their world view is backwards to text book rigid body dyanmics and will remain so even in the face of experimental data, and of course, losing arms.
I’m trying to understand your definitions of “rotating” and “not-rotating” better so that I can better translate the language you use to describe a phenomenon to the language everyone else uses.
Regarding the Sun…so are you saying that your concept of “rotating” does not apply to the Sun? What about stars in general?
Keep making up things and slinging them at that wall, Ball4.
bdgwx needs all the help he can get.
Ball4,
Agreed. It sounds like they accept the same phenomenon. They just use different words and phrases to describe them. Kudos for figuring that out before everyone else.
Now if we can just figure out the exact translation matrix to use for their language to convert it into the language everyone else uses then we can have meaningful conversations again.
Correct me if I’m wrong…but didn’t this difference in language arise because a discussion took place about comparing the Moon with the Earth in terms of radiation received by the Sun and the mean temperature of each? I think I remember there was debate because of the different rotations rates between the two and that obviously escalated into rejecting that the Moon even rotates at all. Who knew that the non-spinners were using a different definition for “rotation” this whole time?
ClintR, I certainly don’t want to make up a position you don’t hold or a definition of a word or phrase you don’t adhere to. That’s why I’m asking you these questions. I genuinely want to know more about how your definitions of “rotating” and “not rotating” are applied in a variety of scenarios. Do you mind obliging me?
“Who knew that the non-spinners were using a different definition for “rotation” this whole time?”
We’re not. In fact I am the only person here to have linked to the relevant definitions of rotation.
bdgwx, you DO make up things about our positions. In fact, you continually try to pervert our words, as does Ball4, Swanson, Norman, and the rest. Consequently, I have no interest in a typing contest with you idiots.
When you can make a comment, that contains no distortion of reality, then people are more likely to respond in kind.
“In fact I am the only person here to have linked to the relevant definitions of rotation.”
And then use the definitions backwards to what the author intended by changing his meaning & not using the author’s words. Then claim without support: “We’re not.”
All wrong, Ball4.
The responses confirm that you got it right bdgwx.
Huh?
Yeah, the “idiot” overdrive mode.
What are you talking about?
That’s correct Svante 1:45pm. bdgwx correctly means invert what ClintR and DREMT write on the subject because they write it backwards. For example, bdgwx means DREMT writing “all wrong” is simply then interpreted “all correct” so forth. If DREMT writes “no GHE” interpret that as there is a GHE because DREMT, ClintR write backwards. Only then, as bdgwx writes, can we get to meaningful conversations.
Seem to recall a bar over a symbol meant opposite, or something like that. Works better that way with symbol bar DREMT.
“In fact, you continually try to pervert our words, as does Ball4, Swanson, Norman, and the rest.”
I forgot to also mention Svante, and Tim, and Nate.
They all do the same thing in different ways. The idiots on this blog are to truth, what terrorists are to civilization.
The same as the GPE, their comments made perfect sense when you their their lunatic reference frame.
when you used …
Yes, that’s truth too Svante. ClintR writing backwards on the subject really means: The truth tellers on this blog are to falsehoods, what terrorists are to civilization.
The real trouble is Gordon. You can never really tell if Gordon is writing backwards or not.
No, he’s something else.
I think we can derive the translation matrix that DREMT uses though based on the discussion above we might need a different one for each of the astronomical bodies in the solar system. ClintR/JD seems evasive on direct questions so we’ll probably just have to guess at his. I think bill would be open to assisting with his translation matrix. GR…I have no idea…I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to figure that one out.
But this puts a focus on the big elephant in the room. Ball4, Swanson, barry, Svante, Nate, NASA, and pretty much everyone else agree on definitions but GR, ClintR/JD, DREMT, bill all individually use different definitions that may not even be consistent among themselves then that’s going to make conversations involving Earth or Moon rotation difficult and confusing. The obvious and simplest solution is for them to just adopt the definitions that have already been established and predate to any of us.
Instead of twisting our words into something we are not saying, why not try listening to our actual words? To do so, scroll up and re-read until you understand.
bdgwx says:
Maybe I should have clarified thenwhen I say tidal lock I should have said 1:1 spin-orbit tidal lock.
The phenomenon you call not rotating is the same phenomenon everyone else calls 1:1 spin-orbit tidal lock.
The phenomenon you call rotating everyone else calls not in a 1:1 spin-orbit tidal lock.
Im curious thoughhow do you generalize your rotating and not-rotating definitions to other astronomical bodies? For example, how do you determine if the Sun is rotating using your definition? Do you always you the perspective of a stationary observer on the Earth?
===================================
So what you are saying with the moon rotating on its axis with a tidal locked face to earth the earth is rotating around the moon?
The reason they’re trying to make false assertions about our definitions is to distract. They are trying to cover up for the fact that their definitions keep changing. They only fool other idiots.
I think both GR and DREMT would agree with the simple definitions provided by wikipedia, under “Rotation”, are satisfactory:
A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object can always be rotated about an infinite number of imaginary lines called rotation axes (/ˈæksiːz/ AK-seez). If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity. The axis is called a pole.
So, a MGR is rotating about its axis, but the wooden horse attached to the MGR is orbiting.
Let’s see how they attempt to pervert that simple definition. (Watch for the usual “tidal locking”, “sidereal/synodic”, “I used to build satellites”, and other such distractions/nonsense.)
One backwards matrix bdgwx 3:14pm could employ is:
A)Orbiting object same face to object being orbited: orbiting object is non-rotating on its own axis.
B)Orbiting object different faces to object being orbited: orbiting object is rotating on its own axis.
So when ClintR writes: “The train is not rotating about it axis.”
you enter into the matrix and find that’s A) so you go to B) for the correct interpretation: the train is rotating on its own axis. No debate.
—-
Let’s check that, when DREMT writes: “the same face of the moon is always pointed towards Earth” you enter into the matrix and again find that’s A) so you go to B) for the correct interpretation: the moon is rotating on its own axis. No debate.
—-
Let’s check that, when DREMT writes: “The Earth is rotating on its own axis.” you enter into the matrix and that’s B) so you go to A) for the correct interpretation: the Earth is non-rotating on its own axis.
Uh-oh that’s wrong in reality, DREMT was right to begin with as the orbiting object presents different faces to object being orbited. So you have found a legitimate debate point: the objects have different rotation on their own axes rates, moon is once per orbit and earth is 365 so you have found a basic cause of your differences with your matrix approach. Good going.
—–
Let’s check that, when DREMT writes: “A chalk circle drawn on the edge of a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis” you enter into the matrix and find that’s A) so you go to B) for the experimentally correct interpretation: the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis. No debate.
—–
From that exercise bdgwx might be on to something i.e. “this puts a focus on the big elephant in the room” when to debate a comment by the team, or not. Building a more complete matrix might be of interest to bdgwx, some of the rest of us will appreciate the effort.
Yes, ClintR, those definitions seem fine to me.
“Yes, ClintR, those definitions seem fine to me.” Good deal!
If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin as plate in Fig. 2(b) “rotation” rotates or spins on its own axis “upon itself” just like the moon rotates on its own axis. The axis is called a pole.
A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution like the plate orbits about point O in Fig. 2(b) same as the moon orbits Earth.
Glad DREMT finally comes around to agree with the text on rigid body dynamics. bdgw might have to abandon his matrix approach if this keeps up. I doubt it.
And look at the massive, yet futile, effort by Ball4 to pervert reality.
I know, he really is relentless.
Another win for bdgwx backwards matrix approach. So for both ClintR and DREMT: no debate.
Ball4 says:
if Hubble were staring at a distant galaxy in rectilinear translation in earth orbit,
=========================
thats what the moon is doing Ball4 its traveling in orbit in rectilinear translation and not rotating on its axis as it follows the edge of the orbital plane.(a)
=========================
=========================
Ball 4 says:
that would be called Hubble rotating on its own axis to do so
=========================
thats what you are saying its doing. The non-spinners disagree.
=========================
=========================
Ball 4 says:
in ClintR, DREMT worldview because Hubble would then present all its faces to an Earth observer.
=========================
The nonspinners say if it was rotating on its axis it would be showing all faces to an earth observer.
=========================
=========================
Ball 4 says:
ISS is rotating on its own axis station keeping for same face pointed to earth but in ClintR, DREMT world view, ISS is not rotating on its own axis because it keeps the same face to earth as does the moon.
===================
correct!
=========================
=========================
Ball 4 says:
Their world view is backwards to text book rigid body dyanmics and will remain so even in the face of experimental data, and of course, losing arms.
======================================
Wrong Mahdavi specifically excludes an object with its axis traveling in rectilinear motion from being an axis of central rotation.
His rules are complex but designed to eliminate rotation dependent upon another axis and clearly shows that in Fig. 2(a). And includes the curvilinear translation of variants of Fig. 2(a) right up to and including the rectilinear translation that the moons axis if following. A better argument is that the earth moon does not represent a rigid body. But the fact is there is no known source that can break the bond of gravity so its a good analogue.
One can say the same thing about the earths orbit. One revolution of the earth during a year is on the axis of the sun, not the earth.
Moving on up one revolution of the sun during its trip around the galaxy is also not a spin on the sun’s axis. And so on one rotation of the galaxy is not a turn on the galaxies rotation around whatever it rotates.
Only with this sort of program can you eliminate the 4,500,000,000 mile error per year with fixing on the stars.(and God only knows what you have to add to it for the galaxies one faux revolution on its axis). Definitely more intensive to calculate but in this age of computers pretty much a piece of cake once you get all the algorithms in. Set a departure time and a destination, input spaceship speed and sit back and relax.
Meanwhile all the spinners will be looking all over the place for something that doesn’t spin and not finding anything.
No Star Trek captain would ever navigate by spinner means. NASA recognizes these errors but goes by the motto ‘good enough’. that should hold up until intragalactic travel between the stars. so just understand your point of view makes for a shoddy navigational system.
I think I said right at the beginning its benefit was an easier to maintain database until you have to start translating it all back.
Imagine mounting a 20 year mission to the center of the galaxy and missing it by 90 billion miles plus or minus whatever the galaxy center moves. . . .you might run out of fuel correcting your headings.
“Wrong Mahdavi specifically excludes an object with its axis traveling in rectilinear motion from being an axis of central rotation.”
That is correct for Fig. 2(a) “translation” without rotayion about internal axis bill; the moon is following 2(b) “rotation” to keep one face pointed at earth as illustrated in 2(b) the plate always faces point O by rotating on its own internal axis as calculated by Tim’s phone. To understand when to debate ClintR and DREMT it is helpful to run through bdgwx matrix exercise.
“But the fact is there is no known source that can break the bond of gravity.”
The Voyagers have done so.
“One revolution of the earth during a year is on the axis of the sun, not the earth.”
ClintR’s 4:34pm clip points out that is an orbit about an external axis.
Both the moon and earth rotate about an internal axis. Since the earth rotates on its own internal axis 365 per orbit, the earth shows all faces to the sun. The clip & Fig.s explain moon rotates only once on its own internal axis per orbit thus showing the same face to earth per orbit of an external axis.
Run through bdgwx matrix idea and you will properly discover when to debate ClintR, DREMT…or not.
Ball4 says:
That is correct for Fig. 2(a) translation without rotayion about internal axis bill; the moon is following 2(b) rotation to keep one face pointed at earth as illustrated in 2(b) the plate always faces point O by rotating on its own internal axis as calculated by Tims phone. To understand when to debate ClintR and DREMT it is helpful to run through bdgwx matrix exercise.
===========================
So you guys are as smart as a smart phone is? LMAO!
==========================
==========================
Ball4 says:
But the fact is there is no known source that can break the bond of gravity.
The Voyagers have done so.
==========================
Indeed. Perhaps we will someday have rockets big enough based on the moon with their nosecones buried in the moondust we will be able to launch the moon out of it orbit. But not this week.
=========================
=========================
Ball4 says:
June 1, 2020 at 10:52 PM
“Wrong Mahdavi specifically excludes an object with its axis traveling in rectilinear motion from being an axis of central rotation.”
That is correct for Fig. 2(a) “translation” without rotayion about internal axis bill; the moon is following 2(b) “rotation” to keep one face pointed at earth as illustrated in 2(b) the plate always faces point O by rotating on its own internal axis as calculated by Tim’s phone. To understand when to debate ClintR and DREMT it is helpful to run through bdgwx matrix exercise.
=================================
Your interpretation is ludicrous for several reasons.
1. Point O Fig. 2(b) is defined by Madhavi as the fixed axis and it is outside the rectangle/sphere/object.
2. There can’t be a second fixed axis inside the object or it will be incapable of any movement at all.
3. Madhavi allows alternatively for the fixed axis (Point O) to be inside the object (not as an additional axis) but says if its inside the object it most be fixed and not translating and it must have zero acceleration and velocity.
4. The moon does have an axis but its not fixed. It may have had at one time additional rotations around it fixed in relationship to those rotations, like the earth. Madhavi very clearly uses 2 fixed points where movement is still allowed but says they are not rotations. Madhavi also has an example of plane motion for rotations like the moon and for one rotation of the earth.
Using Madhavi poorly translated words not bill words:
1.”point O remains fixed” in Fig. 2(b) as defined by Madhavi to position the fixed external orbital axis of the plate as it is outside the plate illustrated, per ClintR clip.
2.”Plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation” about its internal axis while orbiting external axis thru fixed point O.
3.Madhavi allows alternatively for any axis (not thru Point O) to be inside the object “plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation” “this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration” about that internal axis.
4.The moon does have an axis but it is not fixed. It may have had at one time additional rotations around it fixed in relationship to those rotations, like the earth. Madhavi very clearly uses 2 fixed points where movement is still allowed and says “point O remains fixed” for plate’s external axis “plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation” about the other internal axis. Madhavi also has an example of plane motion for rotations like the moon and for one rotation of the earth per its orbit in Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
#2
I know, he really is relentless.
Ball4 says:
June 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM
Using Madhavi poorly translated words not bill words:
1.”point O remains fixed” in Fig. 2(b) as defined by Madhavi to position the fixed external orbital axis of the plate as it is outside the plate illustrated, per ClintR clip.
2.”Plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation” about its internal axis while orbiting external axis thru fixed point O.
==============================
There is no internal axis plotted in Fig. 2(b). Your inculcation has you imagining things.
=============================
=============================
Correct bill, no internal axis shown in either Fig. 2; the internal rotational axis is shown in Fig. 1 intersecting the rotating about its own internal axis object at the right.
#3
I know, he really is relentless.
Far upstream, some asked me about the arguments that support the paradigm that the moon is indeed rotating once each time it orbits. Here a few.
0) 20 generations of scientists and 3 generations of engineers all work within the paradigm that the moon is rotating. Do people *really* think that that 4 random guys on a blog are smarter? Do people really think that ‘a chalk circle on a merry-go-round’ or ‘a horse running around a track’ or a ‘ball on a string’ haven’t been contemplated — and rejected — many times in the past? Sure, scientists have been known to be wrong, but never for this wrong for this long on something this fundamental.
1) There are many instruments that measure rotation. My smartphone has one that measures rotation about each of the three axes of the phone. I have set it on a merry-go-round and measured the rotation inside a ‘non-rotating chalk circle’ drawn on a rotating merry-go-round — yep, it measures a rotation around the appropriate axis of the phone! There are more accurate rotation sensors accurate to ~ 0.01 degrees/hour (the moon changes about 0.5 degrees/hour); these sensors would measure the moon’s rotation. A Foucault Pendulum on the North Pole of the moon would slowly knock down the pins around its base, indicating the rotation.
2) Any theory must be able to describe an elliptical orbit as well as a perfectly circular orbit. Below is an image of a moon at perigee and again 1/4 of the distance around the orbit. Which direction will the moon now be oriented?
* The green arrows, with the same side still directly toward the earth (ie ‘not rotating, like a ball on a strong’)? |
* The red arrows, with the same side still pointing forward (ie, ‘not rotating like a train car on a track’)?
* The blue arrows that have rotated about 360/8 degrees as the moon has traveled for about 1/8 of the total period (ie, ‘rotating at a fixed rate around its own axis relative to the fixed stars’)?
Those gyrosensors in (1) will tell you it is the blue arrows.
https://postimg.cc/LY6BwJV9
3) You might imagine the kinetic energy of the moon is 1/2 mv^2, where v is the orbital velocity of the center of mass. But this is too small (because the far parts of the moon are moving faster, and KE depends on v^2). The correction is to add in an amount 1/2 Iω^2, the rotational KE of the moon rotating about its own axis.
4) Lets throw in one more. Imagine a heavy ball on a frictionless axle. I stand still and hold the axle vertically and spin the ball at 1 revolution per second about its own axis (and without friction, it doesn’t slow down).
* if I carry it in a straight line, it is still turning at 1 rev/s about its own axis.
* if I carry it in a straight line in a different direction, it is still turning at 1 rev/s about its own axis.
* if I carry it around a large circle in 1 hour, it is sill turning at 1 rev/s about its own axis.
* If I carry it around a smaller circle in 1 minute, it is still turning at 1 rev/s about its own axis.
Tim, your 0) is an embarrassment, and with your 1) you just revealed you don’t understand our position. I thought you did? The phone on the merry-go-round is rotating, about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. The Foucault pendulum, too, would only indicate rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter…not about the moon’s own axis.
DREMT pay attention to: “My smartphone has one that measures rotation about each of the three axes of the phone.”
Any object just at rest on a rotating platform is merely rotating about the center of that platform.
Tim’s phone measures differently DREMT so we employ bdgwx’s backwards matrix approach, find since you write backwards you really mean in reality the phone does rotate on its own axis. So: no debate.
OK, you are going on the ignore list.
0) We won’t tell them they were wrong.
1) You have to know how to use a measuring instrument.
2) The arrows are examples of your incompetence. You need to use vectors, but you probably don’t know how.
3) There is no angular velocity about its axis.
4) Yes, you can have both motions at once. Earth both rotates and revolves. Moon only has one motion.
1. If I lie still on my back on the floor on the equator with feet pointed east for 24 hrs have I rotated about my own axis?
2. If I lie still on my back on a trolley on the equator with feet pointed east for 24 hrs and the trolley is moving east at 1m/s am I rotating about my own axis?
3. If I lie still on my back with feet pointed east strapped to a spaceship that is 1 m off the ground moving east along the equator at 10000 m/s am I rotating about my own axis?
4. If I lie still on my back with feet pointed east strapped to a spaceship that is circling the earth directly above the equator at 10000 m/s am I rotating about my own axis?
Harves, I assume you meant those to be rhetorical questions, as the obvious answers are all “no”. But, the idiots would have to answer “yes” to all, because otherwise their beliefs go up in smoke.
Good thinking!
Harves…no to all 4 points. You are performing the same motion as a rocket ship moving in a straight line except your rectilinear path is gradually changing into a curved orbit.
I think the problem is the ‘no force’ assumption.
having a fixed globe mgr and a friction free globe mgr and synodic days results in confusion. So lets simplify this.
Lets stick to a star lit moon. Sunlight just confuses the issue so lets get rid of the sun for this exercise. Thats one sidereal day/month for a full rotation for star light.
a) For the frictionless globe mgr the globes are set spinning at on their axis at 1 revolution per day. since there is no friction it doesn’t matter if the mgr moves or not. Thus you will see all sides of the moon once a day regardless whether the mgr moves or not or how fast the mgr rotates its still on revolution per day from the center of the mgr. The globes are indeed rotating on their axis for option A.
b) For the fixed globe mgr the globes can’t turn on their axis. Instead they will only turn when the mgr turns. thus to see the same side of the globe the mgr can turn at any speed and there will be no revolutions on the axis of the fixed globes and no matter how fast the mgr spins you will only see one side of the globes. The globes are not rotating on their own axis but they are rotating on the mgr’s axis. Its proven if we vary the speed of the mgr days either get shorter or longer.
c) for the frictionless globe mgr the globes are set to be rotating 1 revolution per day. And it just happens that the mgr is also rotating one revolution per day but in the opposite direction. The globes are clearly rotating on their own axis but to keep one face view from the center of the mgr the mgr must coincidentally be rotating exactly one revolution a day in the opposite direction.
So which fits our world? The answer is clear its b. The moon is fixed in place and has no choice in the matter. From space a and b look identical. But a would not look like the moon does from the center of the mgr as it would show all sides each revolution.
From the mgr b and c would look identical. But option c is not how it looks from space as it would appear to not be rotating and we know thats not the case.
Can anybody come up with an option d)? If not lets dispense with the notion of no torque and accept that the moon rotates on the center of gravity of earth despite it appearing that it is also rotating on its axis as option C is ruled out by the direction of spins.
The no torque for b to happen argument is just bogus.
So the only issue left to decide is whether there is enough torque to cause the cannonball which will be spinning around an axis through the center of earth’s gravity will rollover enough on its own axis in a single orbit to find a stable tidal lock position. that would probably be good to know so we could figure out how much torque we are talking about. It could like Tim said be ‘nudged’ into that attitude. . . .but we are only talking about a partial turn on the cannon balls axis with all the spinning seen on earth being the cannonball not rotating on its axis.
I cleaned up the previous post.
I think the problem is the no force assumption.
Having both a fixed globe merry-go-round and a friction free globe merry-go-round together with synodic (solar) days results in a great deal of confusion. So lets simplify this.
Lets stick to a star lit moon. Sunlight just confuses the issue so lets get rid of the sun for this exercise. That’s one sidereal day/month for a full rotation of the moon under star light.
a) For the frictionless globe merry-go-round the globes are set to spin on their axis at 1 revolution per day. Since there is no friction it doesnt matter if the merry-go-round moves or not. Thus you will see all sides of the moon once a day from the center of the merry-go-round regardless how fast the merry-go-round rotates. It still is rotating exactly one revolution per day as viewed from the center of the merry-go-round.
The globes are indeed rotating on their own axis for option a).
b) For the fixed globe merry-go-round the globes cant turn on their own axis. Instead they will only turn when the merry-go-round turns on its own axis. Thus no matter how fast the merry-go-round rotates you will only see one face of the globes ever.
The globes are not rotating on their own axis but they are rotating on the merry-go-rounds axis. The proof is that the globes will vary their rotation speed in accordance with the rotation speed of merry-go-round rotating on its own axis.
c) For the frictionless globe merry-go-round the globes are set to be rotating on their own axis at 1 revolution per day. And it just happens that the merry-go-round is also rotating one revolution per day but in the opposite direction on its own axis.
The globes are clearly rotating on their own axis but to keep one face view from the center of the merry-go-round the merry-go-round must coincidentally be rotating exactly one revolution a day in the opposite direction.
So which fits our world? The answer is clearly b)! The moon is fixed in place on its own axis and is a complete slave to the turning of the merry-go-round on its own axis. The globes cannot rotate on their own axis. (I dont know why I feel I have to keep repeating that).
From the stars, options a) and b) look identical and look the way our moon looks to be rotating. But a) would not look like the moon does from the center of the merry-go-round because it shows all sides to the center of the merry-go-round. So a) is eliminated.
From the merry-go-round center options b) and c) look identical they are both only showing one side. But option c) is not rotating from the perspective of the stars. And we know from the stars it appears the moon rotates. So c) is eliminated.
Can anybody come up with an option d)? If not lets dispense with the notion of no torque being available from gravity to rotate the moon. We also need to accept that the moon rotates on an axis piercing the center of gravity of the earth and that it must be torque that got it to do that.
Therefore the argument that gravity provides no torque for b) to happen is simply a bogus argument. Of course we already knew that because of tidal locking where its believed even small objects will eventually tidal lock large objects.
The cannonball argument had some flaws in it and I know what they were so I will provide that argument later.
B Hunter, I think you’ve not stated option (c) correctly. Or, you could call it option (d). If the globe(s) on friction less bearings are rotating 1 turn/day clockwise wrt the ground and the MGR is also rotating 1 turn/day clockwise wrt the ground below, the globe(s) would present the same face to an observer from a fixed location on the MGR. That’s because the observer’s position is also rotating clock wise.
And, once the globe(s) rotation has been started, no extra torques are required, by definition. And tidal locking torques require a liquid cover like the Earth’s oceans, which would not apply to a solid MGR. I would guess that the tidal locking of the Moon is the result of billions of years of application of those torques, given the relatively large moments of inertia for the Moon.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, I think youve not stated option (c) correctly. Or, you could call it option (d). If the globe(s) on friction less bearings are rotating 1 turn/day clockwise wrt the ground and the MGR is also rotating 1 turn/day clockwise wrt the ground below, the globe(s) would present the same face to an observer from a fixed location on the MGR. Thats because the observers position is also rotating clock wise.
And, once the globe(s) rotation has been started, no extra torques are required, by definition. And tidal locking torques require a liquid cover like the Earths oceans, which would not apply to a solid MGR. I would guess that the tidal locking of the Moon is the result of billions of years of application of those torques, given the relatively large moments of inertia for the Moon.
You are right I misstated C. C under your correction is exactly B even though it has frictionless bearings, would be one way to correct it.
C under the way I stated it as an opposing rotation is still ruled out because it would be spinning twice as fast to an observer sitting in the center seeing every side twice a day.
So you are left with B and Bsub1 one with fixed globes and one with free globes. Or you could call it B and D and would appear identical.
So you end up with two versions of B one with frictionless bearings and one without. They both present the same results.
So the proof holds that there is torque there is friction and there is no such thing as frictionless motion.
Simply being in a field of gravity is sufficient to create some friction, all powerful, conforming the world to the fate established by God at creation. Only thing yet to be determined is was any of this premeditated by an omniscient God. It’s a good bet it was, literally.
Like with the experiment of the floating bowls you have slippage against the force but eventual compliance with it. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
And yes science says its a ‘tidal lock’ on the moon due to stretching of the crust under the force of gravity (a very minor version of spaghettification) That stretching involves a form of friction. Very little but sufficient to stop a ball from spinning on its axis and conforming to the direction of turn by an axis piercing the center of gravity of the earth. And that isn’t a unidirectional rule. The earth will eventually bend to the force of gravity of the moon too that is if we aren’t first consumed by the big kahuna on the block which I hear is more likely.
Last note is I went back to correct C and realized there is no C or D or Bsub1. C is covered by A where the merry-go-round can be rotated at any speed forward (or backwards).
So I will correct the argument that way.
Prospective Final Version Draft
I think the problem is the no force assumption.
Having both a fixed globe merry-go-round and a friction free globe merry-go-round together with synodic (solar) days results in a great deal of confusion. So lets simplify this.
Lets stick to a star lit moon. Sunlight just confuses the issue so lets get rid of the sun for this exercise. Thats one sidereal day/month for a full rotation of the moon under star light.
a) For the frictionless globe merry-go-round the globes are set to spin on their axis at 1 revolution per day. Since there is no friction it doesnt matter if the merry-go-round moves or not. Thus you will see all sides of the moon from the center of the merry-go-round regardless how fast the merry-go-round rotates or which direction it rotates.
The globes are indeed rotating on their own axis for option a).
b) For the fixed globe merry-go-round the globes cant turn on their own axis. Instead they will only turn when the merry-go-round turns on its own axis. Thus no matter how fast the merry-go-round rotates you will only see one face of the globes ever.
The globes are not rotating on their own axis but they are rotating on the merry-go-rounds own axis. The proof is that the globes will vary their rotation speed in accordance with the rotation speed of merry-go-round rotating on its own axis.
So which fits our world? The answer is clearly b)! The moon is fixed in place on its own axis and is a complete slave to the turning of the merry-go-round on its own axis. The globes cannot be rotating on their own axis. (I dont know why I feel I have to keep repeating that).
From the stars, options a) and b) look identical and look the way our moon looks to be rotating. But a) would not look like the moon does from the center of the merry-go-round because it shows all sides to the center of the merry-go-round. So a) is eliminated.
Can anybody come up with an option c)? If not lets dispense with the notion of no torque being available from gravity to rotate the moon. We also need to accept that the moon rotates on an axis piercing the center of gravity of the earth and that it must be torque that got it to do that.
Therefore the argument that gravity provides no torque for b) to happen is simply a bogus argument. Of course we already knew that because of tidal locking where its believed even small objects will eventually tidal lock large objects.
Bottom line is that a frictionless globe merry-go-round is an impossible creation as gravity is ubiquitous and eventually all independent rotation will end. Independent rotation will never be ruled out as collisions between objects can and will create objects rotating on their own axes and will do so until friction brings it to a halt. Therefore the frictionless option a) is ruled out by this fact alone. A is in addition ruled out as previously stated.
B Hunter, Your obsession with torques ignores the fact that our conceptual model with frictionless bearings can not transmit any torque. That such exists in the real world has no bearing on such models.
OK, Here’s another case for you to think about.
d) Start with globe mounted on the MGR with frictionless bearings. Next, apply an external CCW torque to the globe without applying a torque to the MGR and continue until the globe is rotating once a day in CCW relative to the ground/Earth. Now, apply another CCW torque to the MGR and continue until the MGR is also rotating CCW once a day and the globe is revolving about the axis of the MGR. Then, from the ground, both the MGR and the globe appear to be rotating CCW once per day. An observer on the MGR sees the same face of globe once the MGR is rotating at 1 turn per day. Then apply a reverse torque (CW)to the MGR, bringing it to full stop against the ground.
Conclusion, the globe is rotating, no matter what rate at which the MGR also rotates.
Bottom line is I see the above argument probably eliminates the issue of the cannonball. The cannonball will rotate in the reference frame of the COG of the earth until friction translates that rotation from on the moon’s axis to on the earth’s COG axis. During that translation the rules of rigid body dynamics do not hold.
Spinners want to hold on to it from a continued ‘nudging’ created by moon’s elliptical orbit that comes and goes equally during an orbit but they dismissed gravitational control of the spin of the moon by the same argument of no net torque. Any crumb to hang onto!!
As I see it the tidal bulge (spagettification) only creates friction when its forced to move by either independent rotation or moving closer or further away from the source of gravity.
E. Swanson says:
June 2, 2020 at 12:07 PM
B Hunter, Your obsession with torques ignores the fact that our conceptual model with frictionless bearings can not transmit any torque. That such exists in the real world has no bearing on such models.
=================================
the proof I presented Swanson shows yes you can imagine a frictionless bearings but imagining them does not make them real.
==============================
==============================
E. Swanson says:
OK, Heres another case for you to think about.
d) Start with globe mounted on the MGR with frictionless bearings. Next, apply an external CCW torque to the globe without applying a torque to the MGR and continue until the globe is rotating once a day in CCW relative to the ground/Earth. Now, apply another CCW torque to the MGR and continue until the MGR is also rotating CCW once a day and the globe is revolving about the axis of the MGR. Then, from the ground, both the MGR and the globe appear to be rotating CCW once per day. An observer on the MGR sees the same face of globe once the MGR is rotating at 1 turn per day. Then apply a reverse torque (CW)to the MGR, bringing it to full stop against the ground.
Conclusion, the globe is rotating, no matter what rate at which the MGR also rotates.
===========================
You turned the rotating globe into a non-rotating globe and didn’t notice you did that. If the globe we are speaking of is rotating there is nothing the mgr can do to prevent you from seeing all sides of the globe from the center of the mgr unless of course the mgr rotates around the globe at the same speed the globe is rotating.
So are you saying the earth is orbiting the moon? No its not. The moon is orbiting the earth. Option c doesn’t any longer exist. Option c) was incorporated into option a) by allowing for the mgr in a) to rotate any direction.
Your option d) constant view of one face can only can exist in the case that the mgr is orbiting the globe or where the globe is bonded and/or not spinning. I say just toss it as an option or toss it later as not being physically representative of whats going on.
b) “the globes can’t turn on their own axis. Instead they will only turn…”
bill, something in your wording goes wrong there. They can’t turn but they will only turn? No. Try again. Globes fixed can turn 1 rev. per orbit, no more, no less, as shown in Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
“The globes are not rotating on their own axis but they are rotating on the merry-go-round’s axis.”
No they are orbiting the merry-go-round axis as that axis is an external axis, see the clip ClintR put up at 4:34pm, orbit is preferred to be clear:
“A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution”
Ball4 says:
b) the globes cant turn on their own axis. Instead they will only turn
bill, something in your wording goes wrong there. They cant turn but they will only turn? No. Try again.
=======================
As usual Ball4 you are so inculcated so as to be blind to the obvious. So let me complete the sentence fragment you are confused over (or obfuscating about because sentence fragments have no meanings)
the (fixed) globes cant turn on their own axis. Instead they will only turn (on the axis they are fixed to)” Rigid Body Dynamics 101
I just realized that statement doesn’t have sufficient information for you to understand either.
so lets try.
Globes that are bonded/welded/glued/forged/solidly stapled/wired/soldered/magnetically or gravitationally attracted to or otherwise possess a form of rigidity able to fully withstand available net forces that otherwise would cause the globe to rotate on its axis cannot rotate on their own axis. They can only rotate on the axis of the object they are bonded to.
Rigid Body Dynamics 101
This should also solve the great confusion you have of Madhavi’s text.
“the (fixed) globes can’t turn on their own axis. Instead they will only turn (on the axis they are fixed to) Rigid Body Dynamics 101”
The globes can’t turn on their own fixed axis but they can only turn on the axis they are fixed to? This is no help bill, still something wrong with your words.
bill really means:
the (fixed to the merry-go-round) globes can’t freely turn on their own axis. Instead they will orbit about the center external axis of the merry-go-round they are fixed to pointing the same face at the center Rigid Body Dynamics 101 point O in Fig. 2b “rotation” illustrating exactly one fixed globe rotation on its own internal axis per orbit of O external axis.
If the globes don’t rotate once on their own internal axis per orbit of the center external axis, then they are thus only translating as in Fig. 2(a) “translation” rigid body dynamics 101 and the globes present all faces to the orbital external axis center point.
“Globes that are bonded/welded/glued/forged/solidly stapled/wired/soldered/magnetically or gravitationally attracted to or otherwise possess a form of rigidity able to fully withstand available net forces that otherwise would cause the globe to rotate on its axis cannot rotate on their own axis. They can only rotate on the axis of the object they are bonded to.”
You can’t possibly think Earth acts like it is welded to the Sun or the Moon? If so than it could not freely rotate, as it most certainly does.
How bout this?
Just stop twisting yourself into logical pretzels, and inventing ridiculous scenarios, in order to FORCE nature to match your prior hypothesis.
Instead, use the scientific method, and toss out your hypotheses if they dont fit the data.
Nate says:
”Globes that are bonded/welded/glued/forged/solidly stapled/wired/soldered/magnetically or gravitationally attracted to ….”
You cant possibly think Earth acts like it is welded to the Sun or the Moon? If so than it could not freely rotate, as it most certainly does.
====================================
CHERRY PICKER STRAWMAN ALERT!
Why pick on just welded Nate? How about gravitationally attracted to as an absurdity?
Ball4 says:
If the globes dont rotate once on their own internal axis per orbit of the center external axis, then they are thus only translating as in Fig. 2(a) translation rigid body dynamics 101 and the globes present all faces to the orbital external axis center point.
================================
You have it completely backwards Ball4. You are translating the rotation of the globe on the mgr’s own axis back to the non-rotating axes. In the process of doing that you are in violation of rigid body dynamics.
The rotation is on the mgr’s own axis. No need to translate it except during some possible period of translation before it becomes fixed and subject to the rules of rigid body dynamics.
This is the bowls floating on water. When the small boats aren’t rotating with the larger rotating bowl its merely in a period of translating action and not subject to the rules of rigid body dynamics. However once the friction has aligned the action of the small bowl with the large bowl is when rigid body dynamics becomes applicable. Your response is simply your desire to translate it back again through the translation period.
“The rotation is on the mgr’s own axis.”
No bill, mgr’s own axis is the external orbital axis for your globes about “point O remains fixed”. Madhavi writes for internal “the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body” so globe’s own axis of rotation has to intersect the globe.
To read more, go here and understand what ClintR posted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-480208
Ball4 says:
The rotation is on the mgrs own axis.
No bill, mgrs own axis is the external orbital axis for your globes about point O remains fixed. Madhavi writes for internal the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body so globes own axis of rotation has to intersect the globe.
==============================
Taking a clause out of context is either intellectual dishonesty or its stupidity.
The sentence reads ”If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body.”
Thats a conditional statement Ball4 not an absolute statement. If you have any analytical power at all in that skull of yours you should be able to take all that Madhavi is illustrating and saying as true rigid body dynamics. If you can’t do that thats your shortcoming.
You can continue your argument but only after explaining the ‘other’ condition(s) and how they don’t apply to this example.
“Thats a conditional statement Ball4 not an absolute statement.”
Doesnt matter bill, an internal axis intersects the body, conditional or absolute.
Just take all that Madhavi is illustrating in Fig. 2(b) “rotation” as the imperfect translation wording is confusing you about which axis is external “orbital” and internal “rotation; ClintR’s clip is better reading for you on that subject.
all4 says:
June 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM
“Thats a conditional statement Ball4 not an absolute statement.”
Doesnt matter bill, an internal axis intersects the body, conditional or absolute.
===============================
STUPIDITY ALERT!!
Affirmation of the consequent!
If it rains outside the sidewalks will get wet.
The sidewalks are wet
Therefore, it rained outside.
No Ball4. You cannot affirm the consequent in a conditional statement. The conclusion above is wrong because the folks living next to the sidewalk might have had their sprinklers on.
So you can’t ignore the cases where the rotational axis is outside the rectangle. Madhavi probably used an axis outside of rectangle as THE illustration for Fig. 2(b) out of experience in dealing with slow students like yourself.
You are simply demonstrating why thats probably the case.
Sure bill, wet sidewalks can be caused by many things, nice strawman, well stabbed.
However, an internal rotational axis always intersects the object & an external orbital axis does not intersect the object. See Madhavi Fig. 1, object on the right for an internal rotational axis always intersects the object.
Also, again, refer to ClintR’s clip.
Ball4 says:
Sure bill, wet sidewalks can be caused by many things, nice strawman, well stabbed.
However, an internal rotational axis always intersects the object & an external orbital axis does not intersect the object. See Madhavi Fig. 1, object on the right for an internal rotational axis always intersects the object.
==========================================
Always??? Another imagination on your part Fig. 1 shows the difference between arc in parallel planes and arcs in concentric circles only. Read nothing more into it. Fig. 2(b) has all points rotating in concentric circles upon the only axis (point 0) in entire figure. Do you deny that too?
You don’t seem to be catching on to Madhavi & ClintR’s clip, bill.
Fig. 2(b) has all points orbiting an external axis about “fixed point O” in concentric circles upon the only external axis (thru point 0) in entire figure. The rigid body plate itself is rotating as per Fig. 1 about its own so “called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body.. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1)”.
“A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity.”
Bill is correct, and Ball4 is to be ignored.
“possess a form of rigidity able to fully withstand available net forces that otherwise would cause the globe to rotate on its axis cannot rotate on their own axis. ”
The ridiculous part is not the welded, it is the ‘cannot rotate on their own axis’ and ‘possess a form of rigidity’
For someone who so often criticizes climate science as not being thoroughly tested, your tendency to throw highly speculative, improbable, completely made up ideas like these, is, to say the least, quite hypocritical.
Again, it is bleeding obvious that the plain facts are not on your side, and you know it.
If they were supportive of your beliefs, you could simply point to them, as we do.
But you don’t.
Instead you desperately hold to your beliefs by making up, out of whole cloth, highly implausible, flimsy excuses, like this one,
or cannonballs rolling down the cannon at just the right speed,
or instruments arent good enough to measure 6.7 degrees of axial tilt.
Just stop.
Nate says:
Again, it is bleeding obvious that the plain facts are not on your side, and you know it.
=========================
We are the only ones bring evidence Nate. balls welded to a merry-go-round both have axes and don’t rotate on them. If you change the weld to a ballbearing, they have the capability of rotating on their axis but then still need to do it before you say the do when the merry-go-round is going round.
Do they stop spinning when the merry-go-round stops? Yes they do. Why are you so dense that you deny they are not rotating on their own axis and recognize the reality that the rotation you saw was due to the ball rotating around the merry-go-round axis? How can you be so dense? Because yo dada tells you different?
======================
======================
Nate says:
Instead you desperately hold to your beliefs by making up, out of whole cloth, highly implausible, flimsy excuses, like this one,
or cannonballs rolling down the cannon at just the right speed,
or instruments arent good enough to measure 6.7 degrees of axial tilt.
Just stop.
====================================
STRAWMAN ALERT!
“balls welded to a merry-go-round both have axes and don’t rotate on them.”
Not according to Madhavi Fig. 1 evidence, and the video evidence, see the concentric circles of that axis fixed to the object, one rotation on their own axis per ClintR’s clip orbit of O.
bill just needs to catch on to Madhavi and text book rigid body dynamics.
Nate says:
“possess a form of rigidity able to fully withstand available net forces that otherwise would cause the globe to rotate on its axis cannot rotate on their own axis. ”
The ridiculous part is not the welded, it is the ‘cannot rotate on their own axis’ and ‘possess a form of rigidity’
================================
Boy full on display of ignorance Nate. Ever sheer the driveshaft in your car? I did more than once. Souping up my 50’s chevies with extra carburetion, extra heavy duty clutches, shaved heads, etc. Blew gear trains in the several trannies, a differential, and sheered two drive shafts. I remember each one because it was a big set back for a kid with virtually no income. I was a regular junkyard customer looking for something fun to build but losing your wheels, especially when one lives out in sticks is a major comedown.
Obviously you didn’t note ”a form of rigidity able to fully withstand available net forces”. Nate thats a functional definition of rigidity.
the state of the moon even if it gets nudged a bit each orbit net available torque is insufficient to overcome the rigidity of the moon’s tidal lock and rotate it. My driveshafts and trannies and differentials weren’t so lucky. Everything has a breaking point. . . .and when you are young, ignorant, impetuous, and inexperienced you tend to learn you are just that. Provided of course your mommy didn’t make you fear learning by doing.
Nate says:
The ridiculous part is not the welded. . . .
====================================
I shouldn’t just criticize. I have to keep reminding myself. Good deal Nate I sense you are catching on. Good job!
Ball4 says:
June 3, 2020 at 9:25 PM
balls welded to a merry-go-round both have axes and dont rotate on them.
Not according to Madhavi Fig. 1 evidence, and the video evidence, see the concentric circles of that axis fixed to the object, one rotation on their own axis per ClintRs clip orbit of O.
bill just needs to catch on to Madhavi and text book rigid body dynamics.
==============================
Ball4 I think Nate is catching on to the non-spinner position. You don’t want to be the slowest one in the class do you? Better bear down on that homework more.
bill, in evidence actually overcome the rigidity of the moon’s tidal lock and rotate moon on its own axis more or less than once per lunar orbit as Mahdavi illustrates for bill in the text Fig. 1 and Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
This is beginning rigid body dynamics course; if bill wants to pass the course, then bill has to catch on to Mahdavi and pass the written tests based on the evidence in the lab course.
Ball4 says:
June 4, 2020 at 7:58 AM
bill, in evidence actually overcome the rigidity of the moons tidal lock and rotate moon on its own axis more or less than once per lunar orbit as Mahdavi illustrates for bill in the text Fig. 1 and Fig. 2(b) rotation.
This is beginning rigid body dynamics course; if bill wants to pass the course, then bill has to catch on to Mahdavi and pass the written tests based on the evidence in the lab course.
================================
Actually what you have to do Ball4 is build some of the examples offered by Madhavi and make them work the way you think they work.
Madhavi is simply discussing real world rotation for engineers not what you want to believe.
Madhavi is simply discussing real world rotation on “intersecting” internal axes Fig. 1 AND orbital rigid body dynamics Fig. 2 on external axes for engineers and scientists, bill should catch on to Madhavi to pass his first course exams.
#2
Bill is correct, and Ball4 is to be ignored.
All good Tim, and as expected, no responses other than declaring them wrong without evidence.
Here is another interesting one.
5. The TEAM agrees the Moon is rotating CCW wrt the stars, but not on its own axis.
OTOH, the TEAM say if we add a CW rotation to the Moon around its OWN AXIS, the Moon will then have NO rotation wrt the stars, but it will still be orbiting.
IOW, an opposite rotation about the Moon’s own axis is able to exactly cancel its rotation, even though it is claimed not to have had rotation about its own axis!
Strange that.
6. If we have a sphere in simple CCW orbit (spinner version) with no rotation wrt the stars, what would we need to do to get an orbit like the Moon’s? Could we get it by applying force to its center of mass? No.
We would have to apply torque around the CM of the sphere to make it rotate CCW at just the right speed.
IOW we would have to give it rotation around its own axis!
Strange that.
It’s no surprise idiots get so confused.
5.
“The TEAM agrees the Moon is rotating CCW wrt the stars, but not on its own axis.”
FALSE. Moon is not rotating on it axis. It is orbiting CCW, with respect to North Pole.
“OTOH, the TEAM say if we add a CW rotation to the Moon around its OWN AXIS, the Moon will then have NO rotation wrt the stars, but it will still be orbiting.”
TRUE, if the CW rotation is synced to its orbit. But, the rotation will show, if viewed from Earth.
“IOW, an opposite rotation about the Moons own axis is able to exactly cancel its rotation, even though it is claimed not to have had rotation about its own axis!”
Idiots cannot understand the combined motions.
Strange that.
6.
“If we have a sphere in simple CCW orbit (spinner version) with no rotation wrt the stars, what would we need to do to get an orbit like the Moons? Could we get it by applying force to its center of mass? No.”
As explained above, no rotation wrt stars means it is rotating CW and orbiting CCW.
“We would have to apply torque around the CM of the sphere to make it rotate CCW at just the right speed.”
TRUE. The add CCW rotationg would cancel the CW rotation so it has no rotation, just as it does now.
An idiot got something correct!
Strange that.
“5.
‘The TEAM agrees the Moon is rotating CCW wrt the stars, but not on its own axis.’
Clint:”FALSE. Moon is not rotating on it axis. It is orbiting CCW, with respect to North Pole.”
Well than Clint is very confused and wholeheartedly disagrees with DREMT, who has stated that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars on the barycenter axis ~ 470 times.
The spinners SIMPLY explain non-rotation of planets wrt the stars as non-rotation wrt to the stars.
But the TEAM seems to agree that non-rotation of planets wrt the stars can only be obtained by two counter rotations. One a rotation around a barycenter and the other a rotation around its axis.
Weird and cumbersome that.
Nate says:
But the TEAM seems to agree that non-rotation of planets wrt the stars can only be obtained by two counter rotations. One a rotation around a barycenter and the other a rotation around its axis.
Weird and cumbersome that.
=================================
Nate displaying his ignorance again. Are you in denial of barycenters? Do you believe that defining an axis of rotation in your weird way changes barycenter science? You need to provide more details so I can determine whether I need to raise the strawman or the ignorance flag on this one.
Nate is the one confused. He still confuses orbiting with rotating.
Idiots can never learn.
Tim, in your 2) you seem to be ignoring that the orbital speed varies. The moon would be moving faster when it is closer to the object being orbited.
These prepubertal struggles over what forces are exerted on the Moon are really amazing.
1. According to Newton, the acceleration of the Moon toward Earth due to gravity is about 2.714 10^-3 m/s2.
2. The acceleration due to Moon’s orbiting angular momentum (born in Sun’s planetary accretion disk at Moon’s creation time) is about 2.724 10^-3 m/s2.
J.-P. D.
Yes Bindidon, there are two vectors that produce orbital motion.
The kids are learning.
ClintR the “non”idiot
” The kids are learning. ”
No reply could be both more arrogant and more dumb than yours.
What I wrote I knew decades ago. Are you ‘plain’ sure you did as well, “non”idiot?
J.-P. D.
I assumed you were trying to teach the kids. Why else would you have commented?
Nope drivel some more JD
Yes Bindidon, there are two vectors that produce orbital motion.
Nope, just one
and The Kids are Alright
Drunk again, blob?
Nope DREMPTY,
Just spinning on a merry-go-round
OK, blob.
Im assuming the answer to 1 has to be no and that the answer to all four questions are the same. If not, then altitude or velocity must somehow make a body rotate about its axis?
Harves
Why don’t you wonder about the fact that
– all planets orbiting around the Sun rotate about their center of mass, our Earth of course included;
– an interesting amount of moons orbiting around these planets – like does our Moon orbit around our Earth – also rotate about their center of mass ?
It will take us a lot of observation and of evaluation of what we observed, but at the end, you will – like many others, me included – have to notice and understand that EVERY celestial body
– orbits around another, bigger one,
AND
– rotates about its own center of mass.
Simply because in all the accretion disks movinf around joung stars, and out of which all celestial bodies are born, the dust particles all show both an orbital AND a rotation angular momentum.
That to prove will take a lot of time. But… Science is patient, and always will survive dull pseudoscepticism based on ignorance.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you were doing okay until you got to the end:
“AND
– rotates about its own center of mass.”
There are several moons that do not rotate about their centers of mass.
“Simply because in all the accretion disks movinf around joung stars, and out of which all celestial bodies are born, the dust particles all show both an orbital AND a rotation angular momentum.”
No, that would just be imagination, not science.
binny…”EVERY celestial body orbits around another, bigger one, AND rotates about its own center of mass”.
Not true. The Moon, for one, is tidally-locked and cannot rotate about its centre of mass. Also, there is a lot of debris orbiting the Sun and other planets that have irregular shapes and they are not rotating about their COGs.
Ok, now Im wondering why youd spend four paragraphs telling me what I should be thinking about.
Are you now the blogs self-appointed professor helping students pick their topic of interest?
Jesus man, keep ignorant if that’s what you want…
Harves…”now Im wondering why youd spend four paragraphs telling me what I should be thinking about”.
It’s Binny’s thing. When he can’t prove something he tends to rave.
tim…” If you are on the moon at its north pole and watch the stars, what will you see? You will see the stars rotating over head, right?”
Yes, they are appearing to rotate due to relative motion. That’s why the Sun appears to move across the sky as if it is orbiting the Earth.
The motion you are seeing wrt the stars is due to the Moon oribiting the Earth. An orbit is not classified as rotation about an axis. The Moon is not rotating about the Earth due to its angular momentum since it has no angular momentum, it has only linear momentum. It is being forced into an orbital path by Earth’s gravity.
A ball on a string has angular momentum because it is attached to a radial component, the string. The Moon behaves in a similar manner, it is constrained to an orbital path like the ball is on the string. The same face of the ball always points in but it is clearly not orbiting its axis.
swannie…”from the ground, both the MGR and the globe appear to be rotating CCW once per day. An observer on the MGR sees the same face of globe once the MGR is rotating at 1 turn per day.from the ground, both the MGR and the globe appear to be rotating CCW once per day. An observer on the MGR sees the same face of globe once the MGR is rotating at 1 turn per day”.
This is the problem with thought experiments, distortions in the mind produce distorted conclusions. That applies to all of us, I am not taking a shot at you. Try replicating your motion using two coins side by side, one representing your spinning globe and the other the MGR. There’s no way to keep the same face pointed at an observer while allowing it to rotate around its axis. Try it.
For another, the Moon is not rotating independently in the way you have given the globe an independent rotation. The Moon is held in place by tidal forces from the Earth therefore it cannot rotate. What you have is a globe translating about the Earth as if it was on a rectilinear path.
You can prove that using two coins with a radial line drawn through the axis of one and always pointed to the centre of the other coin. Or you can reason it out. If you can visualize a radial line through the Moon from the Earth’s centre, then examine the portion of the radial line within the Moon, it becomes immediately obvious that the portion within the Moon cannot rotate independently of the full radial line.
In fact, all points along that portion within the Moon are forced to move in concentric circles (assuming a circular orbit). That means the near face circle is inside the axial circle throughout the entire orbit. Therefore, the near face can never rotate about the axis.
Try this one Gordon, it’s not a thought experiment.
Take a basketball, that will represent the Earth.
Take a smaller ball, say a baseball, and paint a face on it.
Try to move the baseball around the basketball, keeping the face towards the basketball, and without adjusting your grip on the baseball.
How many revolutions can you achieve?
And what would that prove, bobdroege?
a) That only a contortionist can model orbital motion with one hand.
b) You don’t understand orbital motion.
c) You’re an idiot.
d) All of the above.
Perhaps the baseball must be rotated on its own axis?
What do you think ClintR?
Oh yeah, I forgot to give the correct answer:
d) All of the above.
I can make one revolution and rotation without damage to my shoulder, any more and my shoulder may pop out of its socket.
And you forgot 5) none of the above
Look dunderblunted, you need to rotate the ball to keep one face towards the basketball while you move it in an orbit.
Orbiting is one thing, spinning is another.
How’s that quantum physics class going?
Still looking for that associate’s degree?
Whew! I gave out the correct answer just in time.
No one can accuse me of making them look like idiots. I let the idiots make idiots of themselves.
It’s a simple experiment ClintR.
Why can’t you try it, Mikey tried it, he likes it.
Mikey could do it, it’s child’s play.
bob, go up the thread and find the simple examples by the NASA guy.
They’re not simple enough idiots can understand them, but it will give you something to do.
I have seen it ClintR,
You misunderstood what he was saying.
And I have plenty to do pointing out how stupid your arguments are.
No bob. If you’ve even seen it, you didn’t understand it.
I can prove it.
1) State his exact words, for his example of orbiting.
2) Then, in your own words, explain why orbiting is not the same as rotating about a center of mass.
You can’t do it, because you’re an idiot.
ClintR,
It is pretty simple really,
An orbit is a path an object takes around another object.
Rotating, or spinning is something you can do while standing in one spot.
I found the link from the astronaut in the space station demonstrating that a whiffle ball is spinning after he lets it go, indicating that it was spinning on its own axis while he was causing it to orbit his hand using the string.
Here I go again,
Say you are on the merry-go-round long enough and its spinning fast enough so that you feel dizzy when you get off.
This is why you feel dizzy
“Each hair is connected to a nerve cell that carries signals to the brain when the head moves. Spinning make you dizzy because the fluid in your ears is spinning round and round so when you stop spinning you are dizzy because the fluid is spinning.”
So the fluid in your ear is spinning because your head was spinning while you were on the merry-go-round.
Now is the fluid in your ear spinning or orbiting.
Spinners want to know.
As I predicted, bob. You don’t even know the NASA guy’s orbital example, and you couldn’t understand it if you did. But, you came up with a new distraction — the inner ear!
I’ll put that on the list of other distractions that idiots use to avoid reality:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Distractions or examples that prove things are spinning, specifically when one is on a merry-go-round, one is spinning, or rotating, because the merry-go-round has angular momentum which is transferred to your inner ear, causing the fluid there to spin.
Proof you guys are out to lunch.
I couldn’t be bothered to search the whole thread for NASA cite, so why don’t you stop being an asshole and post it for me.
Thanks
bob, idiots can’t learn physics, or morals.
ClintR,
I found this where you are quoting somebody, who knows who though
“Imagine it this way — your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving (orbiting). If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
What if you are doing both at the same time, you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?
By the way ClintR
I have a degree in chemistry which required me to take more physics classes than you have ever taken.
More than DREMPTY, more than Gordon.
Not as many as Tim though.
So try this, walk around your friend, you will have to pay someone to be your friend for the duration of this experiment, turning your head to your left so you can look at your friend while you walk around him counterclockwise in a circle.
you will find that you are both revolving and rotating, that’s if you have had any experimental physics training.
Any other answer means you need to go back to school.
“What if you are doing both at the same time, you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?”
Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis, and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.
DREMT gets it: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
Just like the moon. Finally. The rest is wrong. Now DREMT just needs to run bob’s experiment to see what he really sees.
Yes, a clear example of revolving:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
But idiots still can’t see that is all Moon is doing.
That’s why they’re idiots.
DREMT gets it: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
ClintR should pay more attention, stay on the DREMT.
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
Yes ClintR, pretty clear cut, that. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you naturally keep the same side of your body oriented towards your friend throughout.
I used to be a Teaching Assistant at a well know Chemistry Department, and would have to grade students on how well they did their chemistry experiments.
DREMPTY says
“Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis, and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.”
Nope DREMTY, you did not even do the experiment.
I marks a zero in my little green book.
Yes, bob, that’s correct grade for some of the DREMT in this rigid body dynamics course.
ClintR, it is that clear cut since DREMT now gets it: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis” like the moon. The Team displays a habit of drifting in and out of synch. like twin engine airplanes with unsynch’d, dangerous prop.s that only appear to be rotating.
Keep twisting our words, Ball4.
You’re only fooling your fellow idiots. And, that’s easy, as they want to be fooled.
No twisting, DREMT statement was repeated verbatim ClintR. Try to stay on the same sophist DREMT page, getting unsynch’d makes you only appear to be rotating with the team:
Q: “you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?”
A: The DREMT: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
bobdroege says:
June 5, 2020 at 7:19 PM
I used to be a Teaching Assistant at a well know Chemistry Department, and would have to grade students on how well they did their chemistry experiments.
DREMPTY says
Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis, and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.
Nope DREMTY, you did not even do the experiment.
I marks a zero in my little green book.
===========================
Wow terrible teacher grading students wrong for the right answer.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate and object that you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.
DREMT’s actual statement: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis, and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.”
Ball4’s distortion of DREMT’s actual statement: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
Ball4 left out the “…and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.”
Ball4 believes he can misrepresent a quote, and get away with it.
That’s why he’s an idiot.
Alright, time to propose another experiment, get your lab notebooks out, non spinners.
I’ll need all three of you.
ClintR will be the friend.
DREMPTY will be the one walking around him in a circle keeping his left arm pointing to ClintR as he walks around him.
Now Bill Hunter has to prove he can be trusted, because his job is to tape a number to DREMPTY’s right shoulder without letting ClintR see the number.
Now for the experimental test.
It is whether or not ClintR can see the number as DREMPTY walks in a circle around him.
My prediction: You guys won’t do it.
But here is what should happen, ClintR wont be able to see the number as DREMPTY revolves around ClintR rotating on DREMPTY’s axis once per revolution.
bob reminds us of another of their distractions: Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating upon an axis”.
We now have:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
The list keeps growing!
The NASA ISS Flight Director teaches reality:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
“If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
ClintR only imagines a misquote:
Q: “you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?”
A: The DREMT: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
Thank you Bob you copied the non-spinner argument and proved that the moon doesn’t rotate on its on axis. Congratulations!!
Do you even know what you just proved? I am wondering.
ClintR and Bill Hunter fail to conduct an experiment and get 0 marked in my little green book.
“Ball4 left out the “…and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.”“
Yes, ClintR, Ball4 is pretty shameless.
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
Apparently, you guys are very familiar with walking and trains and other land based locomotion.
But not so familiar with motion in space.
In space there are no legs needed.
In space there are no wheels needed, nor steering wheels.
In space, planets have no front and rear.
In space, in orbit, motion doesnt stop when you turn of the engine.
Why do you guys insist that motion in space must be just like the land-based locomotion that you are so familiar with?
Science is able to think about motion in space, without insisting it must be exactly like land locomotion, because it isn’t the same.
Science can think outside the box when needed, while you guys are unable.
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
Nate, that quote came from the NASA ISS Flight Director.
All your comments about space then make you look like an idiot.
ClintR, you need to convince bill you & NASA are correct. bill is lost in the terminology per the rigid body text DREMT posted.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-482540
What does NASA say?
From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon is spinning on its axis at the same speed that it is going around Earth (that is, it is in synchronous rotation with Earth).
from
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/in-depth/
What’s that spinning on its axis?
“Synchronous rotation” – an obvious misnomer. If there were two rotations happening synchronously (the moon rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis) we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
“‘Synchronous rotation’ an obvious misnomer. ”
Ok then bring it up at the next IAU meeting, https://www.iau.org/.
They will file it in the proper file.
“Nate, that quote came from the NASA ISS Flight Director.”
The one whose opinions you misrepresented?
That makes you look like a liar.
Why don’t you triple down on your lie?
#2
“Synchronous rotation” – an obvious misnomer. If there were two rotations happening synchronously (the moon rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis) we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Unless it is tidally locked.
Svante misses the point.
Nate says:
Synchronous rotation an obvious misnomer.
Ok then bring it up at the next IAU meeting, https://www.iau.org/.
They will file it in the proper file.
==============================================
Papal authorities are always impatient with sacrilegous thought.
“Papal authorities are always impatient with sacrilegous thought.”
Yeah yeah, we’re papists and your Galileo.
Like you guys, Galileo:
-opposed authority, and the then-current paradigm
Unlike you guys he:
– deeply understood the then-current paradigm
– deeply understood the evidence for and against it
– did careful experiments and observations
– followed the evidence to a new paradigm
– was a genius
Guys like you always forget the latter traits that separate a successful revolutionary from cranks on the internet.
Nate, we are not discovering stuff here. Galileo discovered a great deal of stuff, even though he is perhaps best known as believing the theory of Copernicus. But he was hardly the first there.
All we are doing is expressing the skepticism of those who continue to research topics like orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum and the true nature of Gravity.
In the meantime obviously like Galileo found to his great dismay and Giordano Bruno to his great pain and suffering and death being burned at the stake by undisciplined extrapolators; we are risking the same fate in calling out all the sycophants of physics who overly extrapolate on public blogs.
Good one bob.
Next try this one Gordon, it’s not a thought experiment.
Take the same basketball, that will represent the Earth.
Take a new smaller ball, say a baseball, and paint an N for north on one face.
Try to move the baseball around the basketball, keeping the baseball N face pointing north, and without adjusting your grip on the baseball.
How many revolutions can you achieve? How many baseball faces point toward the basketball in the baseball 1st revolution?
That’s both revolving and rotating. A contortionist won’t be needed to model that.
The baseball is revolving (or orbiting) about the basketball ClintR, held to point N without any rotations on its own axis so what object is rotating?
No Ball4. You still can’t understand the simple examples given by the NASA ISS Flight Director.
But, don’t be discouraged. Be like bdgwx. He said he has “no shame in being an idiot”.
so what object is rotating? and what did the NASA guy say?
Gordon could be consulted, to help ClintR get the answers.
Same test for you, Ball4:
1) State his (NASA guy) exact words, for his example of orbiting.
2) Then, in your own words, explain why orbiting is not the same as rotating about a center of mass.
You can’t do it, because you’re an idiot.
Last time I checked there are were 86 hits on NASA, probably more now, ClintR will have to be more specific.
Keep checking.
That’s hockey ClintR; if you really want an answer let me know.
My point was that you wouldn’t be able to answer, Ball4.
I’m right again.
ClintR means the NASA guy who agrees with the DREMT:
Q: “you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?”
A: The DREMT and NASA: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
The NASA guy said:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
“If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
That is correct DREMT, in accordance with NASA guy, bob, and Madhavi text. along with your answer I just quoted 9:04am.
It is in direct opposition to blob. Can you not mentally add two motions together!?
If you walk around your friend, in a circle, you always show your same side to your friend. If you then also rotate on your own axis whilst walking around your friend, then your friend sees all sides of you.
That’s orbiting your friend, yes DREMT 11:33am. Except for the misguided name calling you are now correct and actually agree with bob, NASA guy, and Madhavi with your answer:
bob Q: “you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?”
A: The DREMT and NASA guy: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
So, now DREMT, you need to convince bill who is still confused about the meaning of orbiting your friend with bill’s steadfast twisting logic into pretzels.
If you walk around your friend, in a circle, you always show your same side to your friend. That is one motion. If you then also rotate on your own axis whilst walking around your friend, then your friend sees all sides of you.
Again, yes, thats orbiting your friend. Try convincing bill.
Troll, begone.
simple bob! i take a big 24 hour clock with abig hour hand and real nice sharp point on the end an impale a grape on it.
or if it has to be my hand i find an even bigger clock take the hour hand off mount a bicycle seat in its place. sit on the bicycle seat and hold the baseball out on my straight arm. that way and only that way will the baseball be rotating on the hour hand axis.
your request was for me to do it without another axis.
understand the nonspinner position! the baseball is rotating but on a different axis. your test is bogus as there is no axis at all another rule of rigid body dynamics is there be an axis somewhere to have something rotate.
dang guys!! we are getting into kindergarten basics
Sorry bill, there is no clock, no grape, no bicycle. No merry-go-round either. Just you holding a basketball in one hand and a baseball in the other hand without changing your grip on the baseball.
Now here is my test for you guys.
Find a big clock take the hour hand off mount a bicycle seat in its place. sit on the bicycle seat and hold the baseball out on my straight arm. hold the baseball between your thumb and index finger with your thumb and index finger forming the two ends of an axis going through the baseball. Turn on the clock. Now while rotating around the clock take your other hand and gently turn the baseball between your thumb and baseball in a manner that keeps the painted face towards you.
If you think you accomplished that please send me some of the stuff you are smoking.
“hold the baseball out on my straight arm”.
Is your straight arm the one lost in an unfortunate airplane accident when it was pointed thru high rpm propeller that only appeared to be rotating for the commenter to which the arm used to be attached?
First bill has to correctly (citing Madhavi) answer bob’s question.
I have all the materials I need except one, I have the clock, the baseball, and the bicycle seat.
I have a video recorder set up, all I need now is your straight arm, please send it to P.O. Box 348, St Louis Mo.
I will send the video.
Now I am sitting on the bicycle seat, and per your instructions, I
“Turn on the clock.”
Your next instruction is not too clear
“Now while rotating around the clock take your other hand and gently turn the baseball between your thumb and baseball in a manner that keeps the painted face towards you.”
You know if I am holding the baseball in your outstretched arm, it is revolving at the same speed as I am rotating due to the speed of the clock.
Now if your arm was pinned to the minute hand it could revolve around me faster, like 12 times for each revolution of the hour hand.
Then I would have to spin the baseball to keep it pointing to me.
Ball4 says:
June 4, 2020 at 5:52 PM
“hold the baseball out on my straight arm”.
Is your straight arm the one lost in an unfortunate airplane accident when it was pointed thru high rpm propeller that only appeared to be rotating for the commenter to which the arm used to be attached?
First bill has to correctly (citing Madhavi) answer bob’s question.
=====================================
Sure I can answer Bob’s question. I can’t do it because Bob wants me to deny the moon is orbiting the earth. All I did was provide a model for that orbit and the answer reverses. I can do it because I am rotating on the COG of the earth. Simple! I am thinking I might put you guys up against a number of randomly selected kindergartners and and 1st graders and see where you guys come out in that competition.
OK I did Bob’s now you do mine.
“I can’t do it”
That’s obvious. Because bill can’t pass Madhavi’s rigid body dynamics course no matter what bob wants.
No Bill,
I am not asking you to deny that the Moon is orbiting the Earth, of course the Moon is orbiting the Earth.
bob, it is instructive several commenters cannot answer your simple experimental questions. They are all dodgers in the field of rigid body dynamics, same as in the field of climate. Very predictable.
since you guys are about as confused as a bunch of kindergartners in a house of mirrors I will rewrite my test for you so you don’t get confused.
Now here is my test for you guys.
Find a big clock take the hour hand off mount a bicycle seat in its place. sit on the bicycle seat and hold the baseball out on your straight arm. hold the baseball between your thumb and index finger with your thumb and index finger forming the two ends of an axis going through the baseball. Turn on the clock. Now while rotating around the clock take your other hand and gently turn the baseball between your thumb and baseball in a manner that keeps the painted face towards you.
If you think you accomplished that please send me some of the stuff you are smoking.
Hey Big Bill Ball of Confusion
If you are sitting on a bicycle seat rotating like the hands of a clock and you extend your arm out holding a baseball between your thumb and index finger, the orientation of the baseball with respect to your eyes or your blunt in your other hand doesn’t change.
So you can continue to smoke the blunt and you don’t have to turn the baseball, because the baseball will continue to turn with you.
So now you get the point?
wait for it! Pretzel logic on the way.
No need to wait, already available. Simple, accurate logic:
“Try this one Gordon, its not a thought experiment. Take a basketball, that will represent the Earth. Take a smaller ball, say a baseball, and paint a face on it. Try to move the baseball around the basketball, keeping the face towards the basketball, and without adjusting your grip on the baseball. How many revolutions can you achieve?”
None of the DREMT can answer that simple question.
Twisted pretzel logic:
i take a big 24 hour clock with abig hour hand and real nice sharp point on the end an impale a grape on it. or if it has to be my hand i find an even bigger clock take the hour hand off mount a bicycle seat in its place. sit on the bicycle seat and hold the baseball out on my straight arm. that way and only that way will the baseball be rotating on the hour hand axis.”
Q.E.D.
“wait for it! Pretzel logic on the way”
Yes bill, you were right again.
Pretzel logic or not,
I notice neither DREMPTY nor Bill answered my question.
Didn’t answer my question.
Didn’t answer.
Didn’t.
Can’t.
The DREMT has to dodge reality to maintain their low scores in the grade books.
Maybe blob did get the point. Who knows?
Check your lab notebook DREMPTY,
The point is in there.
Oh, but I checked your lab notebook, it’s blank.
Like some other things around here.
You have to do the experiment before you get to state your conclusions.
Just stating your conclusions without experimental evidence gets you a zero, though I have the power to give you a 1 for penmanship.
bobdroege says:
Pretzel logic or not,
I notice neither DREMPTY nor Bill answered my question.
Didnt answer my question.
Didnt answer.
Didnt.
============================
Yes pretzel logic indeed.
You need to specify another exception. If you can’t do it just concede rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate and object that you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.
The only way that this is true
“Quite simply there is only one way to rotate and object that you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.”
Is the Pluto Charon system, when both objects are tidally locked to each other keeping one face locked to each other.
Otherwise its totally wrong.
And you still haven’t done the experiment with the basketball and baseball.
Three things are blank, your lab notebook, your mind, and your scientific reputation.
bob, hoping isn’t doing it.
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
We are observing the Moon from the Earth.
Bob gets the first question right on Who Wants to be a Millionaire! Congratulations Bob! Go for it!
At this late stage they are still writing comments which prove they do not understand the Non-Spinners position. Guess they never will. Oh well.
Idiots are slow learners. Very. Slow.
Sorry DREMPTY, it’s not a political debate or a poll.
It’s all scientific and your position does not agree with observations, so your theory is wrong.
See?
See Dick run, see Jane play with Spot.
See blob drink.
See DREMPTY flunk his physics labs.
See blob drink some more.
Bob you have a one question test and so far have not come up with the right answer in dozens and dozens of tries.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate and object that you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is you rotate around the object.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is excluded.
That’s really flunking.
Bill there is one and only one way to prove you are not the idiot.
That is to somehow come up with a method to distinguish between spinning or rotating, and orbiting or revolving.
You don’t seem to have a grasp of that distinction.
The moon rotates around its axis and I have provided experimental proof by using the basketball as Earth, and the baseball as the Moon model.
In order for the Moons face to stay pointed at the Earth as you revolve it around the Earth, you have to spin your arm on its axis.
Your lack of understanding don’t confront me.
You are just doubling down on stupid Bob.
I can’t see the moon after it sets Bob. I have to move my feet to follow it around the earth. You want me to stand still and move my hand above my heat as the moon goes around my backside and amazingly you think thats proof the moon is spinning. LMAO!!
Here is a much easier proof.
f its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Bill you seem to be confused,
the Earth is the big blue and white ball and the Moon is the little gray one.
Of course from the surface of the Moon, you can see all sides of the Earth.
That’s the only possible explanation for your confusion.
Bob here is the end of your confusion. (assuming you haven’t had a frontal lobotomy like Ball4)
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Rotation is spinning on an axis through the body, not necessarily through the center of gravity.
Revolution is a path around another object.
You gotta keep ’em separated
We can only hope that one day the Spinners are able to separate the two motions correctly.
bobdroege says:
Rotation is spinning on an axis through the body, not necessarily through the center of gravity.
Revolution is a path around another object.
You gotta keep em separated
===================================
Where is the source of your definition bob? You just making that up or is that something down in black and white?
Both rotation and orbit mean a 360degree turn. Rotation, per Madhavi can be on an internal or external axis. The only thing we are differentiating here is whether its and internal or external axis. Engineering demands the moon to be an external axis its impossible as an internal axis.
Astronomy obviously isn’t confined to reality. . . .big bangs, black holes. . . .all extrapolations that may or may not be impossible. So why not orbits too? Einstein shows relativity maybe the universe does orbit around the earth, maybe the moon is the center of the universe. But the only real case for the moon rotating on its own axis is lunarcentrism.
So as a semantics lesson to you is rotation is a generic word for a 360degree turn. Orbit and rotate on ones own axis are subsets of a rotation.
Being able to actually differentiate between the two subsets requires the ability to reason. A tautological argument is a logical basis for reasoning.
Obviously they didn’t have that in your curriculum.
“Where is the source of your definition bob?”
One correct source is the rigid body dynamics text that DREMT posted another is the NASA guy in ClintR comments.
Troll, begone.
Bill Hunter,
You want definitions?
Here you go
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rotation
and
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution
Merriam Webster
Synonyms for revolution
gyration, pirouette, reel, roll, rotation, spin, twirl, wheel, whirl
Synonyms for rotation
gyration, pirouette, reel, revolution, roll, spin, twirl, wheel, whirl
So whats your point?
Yeah what’s the point if when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.
The point is to be precise in language.
I must be talking to a bunch of English majors who never took any physics courses.
So Bill Hunter, where did you study physics.
You didn’t, so you don’t know what you are posting about.
And you call those who have actually studied physics idiots, go figure.
Wait, you can’t figure.
Bob,
It’s such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Quite simple Bill Hunter
Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over again when it has been pointed out to you that there is another solution to the problem.
The consistent viewing is a red herring, you could have observers stationed around the earth and what do they see, all over the earth, everyone sees the same side of the moon as it rotates as it revolves around the earth.
Where did you study physics, or any science for that matter.
“…all over the earth, everyone sees the same side of the moon…”
Yes blob, that is what bill means by a “consistent view”.
Yes spinner spinner chicken dinner
That’s because, as you have admitted, the Moon is spinning at the same rate as it is revolving.
And no, we don’t see all sides of the Moon from Earth, now do we.
Where did I say anything about the moon rotating on its own axis and orbiting?
You seem to have completely lost the plot.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
When you made this comment
“blob is unable to mentally add two motions together.”
The two motions you were referring to being rotating and revolving, both of which apply to the moon in this long winded discussion.
So where did you study physics?
Or can I have an order of fries, no make that a Big Mac.
Admit it.
You have lost the argument.
I said that because you are unable to mentally add two motions together.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
It’s like arguing with a five-year old.
Nope Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner,
You said that because you finally realized that a person walking around someone could be also spinning at the same rate.
Yes the Moon rotates one its own axis.
Yes it’s like arguing with a five year old who doesn’t realize a basic fact, that it’s time for bed.
You being the five year old.
There’s no walking it back now spinner.
A person walking around someone, always showing the same face to that person, represents one motion. Orbiting.
bobdroege says:
Quite simple Bill Hunter
Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over again when it has been pointed out to you that there is another solution to the problem.
The consistent viewing is a red herring, you could have observers stationed around the earth and what do they see, all over the earth, everyone sees the same side of the moon as it rotates as it revolves around the earth.
Where did you study physics, or any science for that matter.
===================================
what does where I studied physics have anything to do with the moon orbiting the earth? Since you all lock stock and barrel have absolutely failed to prove your case all you want me to be is as inculcated as you are.
Present your calculations as proof Bob, that is unless the institution you attended completely failed to do anything but inculcate you.
Bill Hunter,
You want calculations based on observations, well here goes
May 7, 2020 I observed a full moon, meaning the Sun, Earth, and Moon were aligned with the Earth between the Sun and the Moon. The Moon was facing the Sun being fully illuminated.
On or about May 23 I observed a new moon, meaning the Moon was now between the Sun and the Earth, and was facing the Earth meaning it had rotated about 180 degrees.
Then on June 5, I again observed a full Moon, meaning the Moon had turned so it now face the Sun again, completing a full revolution with respect to the Sun in 29 days.
So the Moon rotated a full rotation with respect to the Sun in 29 days.
And if you can’t figure out that the Moon is rotating, then you are dumber than a bunch of Babylonians.
bobdroege says:
And if you cant figure out that the Moon is rotating, then you are dumber than a bunch of Babylonians.
========================================
So when is it going to dawn on you that we have been saying from the start some thousands of comments ago that the moon is rotating. . . .on the axis of the orbit. . . .like a grape impaled on a toothpick.
Until you are able to comprehend what that looks like little progress will be made but here is a test:
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
I see you passed your own idiot test, confirming that you are indeed an idiot.
I have told you several times that there is another way, but you don’t acknowledge that and repeat your insane comment that there is only one way.
There is no way to maintain a consistent view of the moon from anywhere on earth, so that is irrelevant to the question whether the moon rotates or not.
There is the axis the moon rotates on and the axis the moon revolves around the earth on, and both are different.
“Until you are able to comprehend what that looks like little progress will be made…”
…and bill was shown to be right. In fact, blob has made zero progress since the beginning of this discussion.
bobdroege says:
There is no way to maintain a consistent view of the moon from anywhere on earth, so that is irrelevant to the question whether the moon rotates or not.
There is the axis the moon rotates on and the axis the moon revolves around the earth on, and both are different.
==============================
As I have shown its the case they can be different. There is no mandate they be different beyond the fact that science remains ignorant on the topic if they are different.
The point is extremely relevant. The fact we can’t simultaneously see from all sides of the earth is merely and issue of having eyes on all sides of one’s head. For the earth we have eyes on all sides of the earth that can verify their sightings via photography or we can travel around the earth in any direction and the view of the moon does not change. Thus:
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
bill hunter,
It’s quite simple, you are wrong.
There is a way and it’s simply that the moon rotates on its axis at the same speed it revolves around the earth.
It’s called synchronous rotation, some thing you might ask an Aerospace Engineer.
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws#:~:text=Cassini's%20laws%20provide%20a%20compact,treat%20other%20satellites%20and%20planets.
Further more Bill Hunter,
You are wrong about this
“There is no mandate they be different beyond the fact that science remains ignorant on the topic if they are different.”
Science knows they are different and have for a long time.
Follow my links and learn about the Moon’s orbit and rotation, or remain ignorant.
Your choice.
I put a sawbuck on remain ignorant.
…still zero progress.
Yep Synchronous rotation, another as of yet fully defined concept. It actually might be useful making up concepts to keep debates rolling right along. I remained bemused by all the guys hyping ”fixed views of the stars” when they clearly are not. One cannot even define a place in the universe where the Big Bang originated. We have extrapolated a big bang from a point source but where the point source is depends upon where you are.
This is why physics students become so confused about the origins of their science as in this discussion where sycophancy and inculcation is ruling the day in many minds.
Bob I find the following not confusing:
”Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the only way is for YOU to revolve around the object in time with its rotation rate.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth revolves around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.”
It does get confusing when you suggest the moon is rotating on its own axis. I think I will just hold to a rather less confusing paradigm until you get your bullshit straightened out so you can explain it in a way that isn’t confusing.
Here Bill Hunter let me help you
One cannot even define a place in the universe where the Big Bang originated.
Extend your arm out and point with your index finger.
You are pointing at the origin of the big bang!
Ah, I see no comments on my proof the Moon rotates with calculations.
Must have passed peer review.
bobdroege says:
Ah, I see no comments on my proof the Moon rotates with calculations.
Must have passed peer review.
=======================================
Yep modern standardless peer review that can be anything.
Uh please pull on your rod in private its really disgusting.
Watch the Lunar Eclipse tonight
Guess they never will. Oh well.
Shouldn’t you say Guess I never will. Oh well.
You are one of the spinners now.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
You have already admitted that is does.
No walking it back, welcome to the spinner club.
You are ridiculous.
Typical! He has no argument so he is now in the strawman manufacturing business.
Bill Hunter,
DREMPTY stated there was nothing to refute in my proof that the Moon rotates, so that makes him a spinner.
No straw man argument to attack.
bobdroege says:
June 9, 2020 at 9:53 PM
Bill Hunter,
DREMPTY stated there was nothing to refute in my proof that the Moon rotates, so that makes him a spinner.
No straw man argument to attack.
=========================================
nobody here said the moon isn’t rotating. It rotates all the way around the earth every month. I watch it.
Looneycentrism.
On May 17, I wrote a comment in which I referred to a document containing a hint to Moon’s rotation about its axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473635
In the comment I wrote
Of course 1: I anticipate that the Pseudoskeptic geniuses will tell us
” No, no! In the document, they mean Moon’s rotation around Earth! ”
And as expected:
1. Robertson
” They are not using rotation in the same sense you mean it. From a spacecraft approaching the Moon. it would appear to turn, but the turning is not about a local axis, it’s due to the Moon’s angular momentum in its orbit. ”
2. hunter
” NASA uses the term ‘axis’ but only in reference to earth. On the moon they confine the statement to rotation. the only issue is what the moon rotates around. All the obfuscation of libration, perspective, and just the word rotation doesn’t mean the moon rotates on its axis. ”
*
Yeah. I have no problem with such ignorant and arrogant stuff.
Today I write again about places in NASA documents showing as well that it was very important for lunar descent and ascent preparation to take Moon’s rotation about its axis into consideration.
*
A. Apollo: The Definitive Sourcebook – Richard W. Orloff, David M. Harland – Google Books
https://tinyurl.com/ycmbzd2z
On page 284, you read:
Because the Moon’s rotation is locked to the period of its orbit of the Earth, it spins once a month and the Sun traverses the lunar sky at a rate of 12 deg in 24 hr, which required the backup sites to be spaced 12 deg apart in lunar longitude so that the illumination would be right for each day’s delay in launch.
*
B. 1969 NASA Authorization: Hearings, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, on H … – United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics – Google Books
On page 132 you see a picture
https://tinyurl.com/ycwcpbqa
showing the designated Moon landing area rectangle.
And a bit below, you can read:
The 26-degree separation of sets of sites is based upon the following rationale. Since the acceptable landing zone is 90 degrees wide and the Moon rotates at approximately 13 degrees per day, ideally the launch window for landings at a particular subset of sites within the zone is 7 days.
In actuality, the window is restricted to 3 days. This is due to the requirement for optimum lunar lighting conditions at a landing site (Sun angle of 7 to 18 degrees) and a 2-day launch pad recycle time if a launch opportunity is missed. Thus, if a launch opportunity is missed, the Moon will have rotated 26 degrees and the favorable lighting conditions will have moved 26 degrees across the Moon to another landing site.
*
Of course I again anticipate the reaction of the pseudoskeptic “non”idiots. It will be exactly the same stuff as in the reactions to the previous comment.
That doesn’t matter.
What matters, is that none of the ignorant “non”idiots were ever associated to the preparation of the Apollo missions. These luminaries would have moved such missions into indescribable disasters.
Luckily, these missions were organised by intelligent people.
*
We could, of course, continue the investigation by asking NASA for all the Apollo technical documents related to the rotation of the moon around its axis, for example those parts of the software developed, implemented and validated by the team around Margaret Hamilton, which dealt with this problem.
This task I leave to others…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, that’s way over your head. Start with something simple. Start with the simple example of revolving, from the NASA guy:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
Idiots can’t even understand that.
ClintR
You are wasting your time with such incredibly stupid, irrelevant answers.
I repeat: better to be an “idiot” than a “non”idiot…
J.-P. D.
No Bindidon, an example of “wasting your time” is you finding quotes from “tech writers” that don’t know the difference between “revolving” and “rotating”. If you could understand any of this you would know that “favorable lighting” refers to the Sun. Due to its orbit, Moon experiences “day” and “night”. But, again, that’s way over your head.
Maybe we’ll call this distraction the “Moon day/night mystery”?
I’m glad that you’re content being an idiot.
ClintR
1. I repeat the quote:
Because the Moon’s rotation is locked to the period of its orbit of the Earth, it spins once a month…
Good grief.
2. Glad to see that some love to look omniscient, but are not even able to think of the meaning of unmistakable quotation marks.
J.-P. D.
Are you back wasting more time, Bindidon? Idiots can never learn.
You can “repeat the quote” all you want. The quote is still going to be nonsense.
A quick search of your “tech writers” revealed that one is an English major, and the other is an astronomer. That means both of them together would still know zilch about the physics of orbital motion. Sound familiar?
Keep digging your hole….
ClintR,
Here is a test for you!
How many times is the word physics mentioned in the following text?
Bachelor of Arts Degree With a Major in Astronomy
College of Arts and Sciences
Program Requirements
Mathematics Courses (15)
MATH 021 Calculus I (4)
MATH 022 Calculus II (4)
MATH 023 Calculus III (4)
MATH 205 Linear Methods (3)
Basic and Intermediate-Level Science (31-34)
ASTR 007 Introduction to Astronomy (3)
ASTR 008 Introduction to Astronomy Lab (1)
SELECT One of
PHY 011 Introductory Physics I (4)
PHY 010 General Physics I (4)
PHY 012 Introductory Physics Laboratory I (1)
SELECT One of
PHY 021 Introductory Physics II (4)
PHY 013 General Physics II (3)
PHY 022 Introductory Physics Laboratory II (1)
PHY 031 Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (3)
PHY 220 Advanced Physics Laboratory I (3)
PHY 221 Advanced Physics Laboratory II (2)
CHM 030 Introduction to Chemical Principles (4)
EES 021 Introduction to Planet Earth (3)
EES 022 Exploring Earth (1)
Additional EES: 2-4 credit hours at 100 level or above (2-4)*
Intermediate – Advanced Astronomy/Astrophysics (9)
ASTR 105 Introduction to Planetary Astronomy (3)
SELECT One of
ASTR 301 Modern Astrophysics I (3)
ASTR 302 Modern Astrophysics II (3)
“Bachelor of Arts Degree”
Astronomy doesn’t pay much in the private sector. That’s why people with such a weak degree have to remain in academia, or scab onto some government job.
ClintR,
You know nothing, and you obviously don’t have a physics degree, because you would know that often that’s also a Bachelor of Arts Degree.
Though it could be a Bachelor of Science in Physics.
Depends on what you want to do with it.
I have a Bachelor of Arts and Sciences with Letters. I had to demonstrate more writing skills to get the letters part.
And you couldn’t pass any of the courses leading to a Bachelor of Arts in Astronomy.
Yes, you’re more “Letters” than “Science”, bob.
That explains a lot.
ClintR,
Well at least I’m some science and make a living at it.
Not zero science like you.
Do you know how English grads do on pay 20 to 30 years after graduating?
No, you wouldn’t know, you are still working at Burger King.
bob, because idiots never get the science correct, they have to make things up.
They’re very predictable.
I get paid, because I get the science right, therefore I am not an idiot.
Spinners do experiments and publish their results.
Non-spinners do not do experiments and don’t get results.
The non-spinners are the idiots.
bob you are an idiot by your own definition.
i have given you an experiment i have done that you haven’t.
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
I did your experiment, didn’t you see me get arrested on Big Ben?
As I sat on the bicycle seat that was being turned, the baseball in my hand turned with me, keeping its face towards me, such that I didn’t have to turn it.
Time for you to get a basketball and baseball and do my experiment.
bobdroege says:
June 6, 2020 at 9:06 AM
I did your experiment, didnt you see me get arrested on Big Ben?
As I sat on the bicycle seat that was being turned, the baseball in my hand turned with me, keeping its face towards me, such that I didnt have to turn it.
==============================
Yes!!! It works!!! The ball turned in sync with your rotation not because of a separate rotation. If there had been a separate (moon axis) rotation the view would not have changed.
You are almost there. The moon rotates on Big Ben’s axis. It would help though in actually completing the experiment if you laid big ben on its back. After all gravity is still a consideration here. Thought that might be a necessary warning before attempting it considering all the ignorance about gravity gravitating around here.
Still confusing revolution with rotating.
You need to separate the two motions, that’s the point.
We can only hope that one day the Spinners are able to separate the two motions correctly.
So we are back to defining non-spinning as what the Moon does.
So both the Moon at 27 days per rotation and Ganymede at 7 days per rotation are both not rotating at the same rate.
Got it, now back to your regular programming.
blob seems to think it is a problem that different bodies take different amounts of time to complete an orbit.
If these guys actually got through a physics class it was via rote learning and having the final exam containing the same questions as seen on all the quizes.
Where did you guys take your physics?
Different orbital periods is not a problem for me, as I use the synodic period to determine the rotation period of satellites that are in synchronous orbits.
So if you are on the Moon you see Ganymede spinning, if you are on Ganymede you see the Moon spinning.
So which one isn’t spinning, according to you guys who never took physics, its the Moon.
So where did you take physics?
bob, you don’t know anything about physics, so quit trying to fake it. You can’t even grasp the simple examples from the NASA ISS Flight Director.
His example of orbiting: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
His example of rotating about an axis: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
Idiots can’t think for themselves, so quit trying to fake it. Just be content being an idiot.
That’s correct ClintR, now convince bill.
bobdroege says:
Where did you guys take your physics?
=================================
Not at a school where the policy was leave no child behind.
bill stumbles into something correct, “no child” was K-12, Madhavi is college level which bill still needs to pass.
So ClintR,
Explain to my why both of these things can’t happen at the same time at the same rate.
“His example of orbiting: If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.
His example of rotating about an axis: If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.
You can’t and you don’t understand why physics allows both to happen at the same time at the same rate.
ClintR, DREMPTY, and Bill Hunter,
I note you evade the question of where you studied physics.
I studied physics at the school where the first commercial web browser was developed.
How about you three?
Where did you study physics?
“You can’t and you don’t understand why physics allows both to happen at the same time at the same rate.”
Sure, and when they do, you see all sides of your friend from inside the orbit, unlike with the moon, where you only see one side.
No DREMPTY that’s not true.
If I walk around you with both arms outstretched holding a playing card in each hand, you can see the King of Spades in my left hand, but what card is in my right hand?
You can’t see it.
Get your only friend and try it.
Oh yeah,
where did you study physics?
That’s right blob, but then you are only doing one of the motions, the walking around me.
If you were walking around me whilst also rotating on your own axis, I would see both cards.
bob, as DREMT explained, you can have both motions at the same time. Earth both rotates about it axis AND orbits around Sun. Moon only orbits.
You will never understand because you are an idiot.
Ball4 says:
bill stumbles into something correct, no child was K-12, Madhavi is college level which bill still needs to pass.
================================
There you go again mistaking form for substance. Moral paradigms like leave no child behind doesn’t have borders.
ClintR,
Where did you study physics?
No DREMPTY you wouldn’t
Because I am holding my head between your head and the card in my right hand, while I am revolving around you and rotating on my axis.
So you can only see one side of me.
Failure to do the experiment again.
Where did you study physics?
Incorrect, blob. Walking around your friend such that they only see one card, is “revolving”. That is one motion. Walking around your friend whilst also rotating on your own axis would enable your friend to see both cards.
Cool, we get to add another distraction to the list.
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Where are physics courses taught?
The idiots continue to believe they can hide from reality by distracting.
That’s why they’re idiots.
DREMPTY
“Incorrect, blob. Walking around your friend such that they only see one card, is revolving. That is one motion. Walking around your friend whilst also rotating on your own axis would enable your friend to see both cards.”
NO it won’t, get back to me when you have tried the experiment.
and where did you study physics?
bobdroege says:
No DREMPTY you wouldnt
Because I am holding my head between your head and the card in my right hand, while I am revolving around you and rotating on my axis.
So you can only see one side of me.
Failure to do the experiment again.
Where did you study physics?
=============================================
bob apparently you don’t understand that this issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics. If you weren’t so inculcated you wouldn’t be grasping at what you have been told.
This issue is a test of perception and logic. Two faculties you must have before even starting to do any physics on the masses and forces involved in gravity. If you can’t understand your perception and you lack logic the best physics education in the world can’t help you.
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
blob is unable to mentally add two motions together.
Bill Hunter,
nope, there are at least two ways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
the one on the left, you can see the moon turn as it orbits
two two things at once
orbiting and rotating
DREMPTY,
You just admitted there were two motions.
Checkmate.
And welcome to the spinners club.
you are a spinner now and forever more.
There are two motions when your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
But there are two motions, as you have admitted, but you can’t see the card because it is always facing away from the center.
These are the two motions:
1) His example of orbiting: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
2) His example of rotating about an axis: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
If you have 1) and 2) happening simultaneously, the friend sees all sides of you from the center of the orbit.
Thing is Spinner Spinner chicken dinner formerly known as DREMPTY,
“1) His example of orbiting: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
2) His example of rotating about an axis: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
if you are walking around your only friend and rotating at the same time you obviously can’t stay in the same place anymore.
So you are spinning but not staying in the same place anymore, and since you are spinning at the same rate as you are rotating, after one rotation you are facing in the same direction as when you started namely facing your friend. And if you revolve a quarter turn and spin a quarter turn, you are still facing your friend.
You can replace a quarter with any real number and still your are facing your friend.
Wrong.
“you dont understand that this issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics.”
Because Bill and the TEAM have very limited knowledge of it.
Ergo, orbital motion of planets and such… you know that thing Newton figured out with physics,
yeah, that has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.
As the TEAM falls further down the rabbit hole..
Did Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner say “wrong”
You can’t go back now, you are part of the spinner team now.
Yes, blob, I did say “wrong”. Read my previous comments to understand why.
Nope Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner,
I don’t argue with spinners, you are one of us now.
Weird.
obdroege says:
Bill Hunter,
nope, there are at least two ways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
the one on the left, you can see the moon turn as it orbits
two two things at once
orbiting and rotating
==================================
Well thinking about how to engineer the two devices you have illustrated. On the left all I need is a rotating arm with a point on the end where I can stick the globe on it like a grape on a toothpick.
For the one on the right I will have to do a lot more. I need the stick and a motor on the end of the stick to rotate the moon to show all sides to the orbital axis.
“I need the stick and a motor on the end of the stick to rotate the moon”
A good opportunity to illustrate where laws of physics come in.
All you need is a stick with a good bearing on the end.
The Moon and its high moment of inertia, with a little help from Newton, will do the rest.
Nate says:
I need the stick and a motor on the end of the stick to rotate the moon
A good opportunity to illustrate where laws of physics come in.
All you need is a stick with a good bearing on the end.
The Moon and its high moment of inertia, with a little help from Newton, will do the rest.
===================================
well before we can accept your loosey goosey extrapolations, in the case of an mgr where only frictional torque is at play the bearings will make no difference in the end because there are no frictionless bearings and as a result frictional torque will be provided and the bearings will cease to rotate via friction. The difference in timing for that alignment is due to a difference in friction between what drives the mgr and the bearings. The lower the acceleration of the less the bearings will turn such that when acceleration simply becomes a velocity the bearings will align.
When introducing gravity into the equation you have yet to address the issue of torque there that creates orbital angular momentum it seems as though the generation of torqueless orbital angular momentum should be offset by a torqueless spin angular momentum as the conservation of angular momentum in the absence of torque must also be conserved. That seems to be the philosophical consequence of the combination of the 3 truths of science you outlined, Newton, Conservation of angular momentum, and the parallel axis theorem. Perhaps the correct answer remains hidden in the mysteries of gravity but your book learning didn’t extend to logic/philosophy/theoretical science.
Seems to me this remains an issue at the edge of science in both directions of large and small.
Meanwhile science works all that out we are left with the absurdity noted here with your position.
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
So lets try to stop the yada yada and speculation and ad-homs and just settle this one issue, because it is concrete and gets to the heart of the issue.
Is your version correct:
“For the one on the right I will have to do a lot more. I need the stick and a motor on the end of the stick to rotate the moon to show all sides to the orbital axis.”
Or mine?:
“All you need is a stick with a good bearing on the end.”
Can you make the case for your version, but with only proven science and solid logic?
To clarify, we are talking about how to get a moon to orbit with fixed orientation to the stars.
Nate says:
So lets try to stop the yada yada and speculation and ad-homs and just settle this one issue, because it is concrete and gets to the heart of the issue.
Is your version correct:
For the one on the right I will have to do a lot more. I need the stick and a motor on the end of the stick to rotate the moon to show all sides to the orbital axis.
Or mine?:
All you need is a stick with a good bearing on the end.
Can you make the case for your version, but with only proven science and solid logic?
To clarify, we are talking about how to get a moon to orbit with fixed orientation to the stars.
====================================
Nope I just know enough to see a librarian for the Pope when I see one.
Until I learn more about why. . . . I am sticking with. . . .
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
‘Can you make the case for your version, but with only proven science and solid logic?’
“Nope I just know enough to see a librarian for the Pope when I see one.”
And there we have it.
Your assertions cannot be supported with proven science or solid logic.
Even you admit it.
“Quite simply there is only one way…yada yada…”
And unable to back up your beliefs, you’re moving into pure troll mode.
Repeating a falsehood 47 times, hoping against hope that it will get mistaken for a fact.
Nate says:
And unable to back up your beliefs, youre moving into pure troll mode.
Repeating a falsehood 47 times, hoping against hope that it will get mistaken for a fact.
==========================================
I am not here producing facts Nate. You are the only one trying to do that. I am here looking for facts and using logic. Logic cannot produce facts. A logic check merely provides an opinion on whether an argument is valid. In other words it checks arguments for absurdities and requires those promoting the argument to find an alternative argument if indeed what they are arguing for is a fact.
Check it out as it smashes your argument:
”Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the only way is for YOU to revolve around the object in time with its rotation rate.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth revolves around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.”
How about the whole quote?
“Imagine it this way your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving. If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating. If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. Thats what the ISS does.”
Robert Frost: Instructor and Flight Controller in the Flight Operations Directorate at NASA.
ClintR you are busted for lying by omission.
He contradicts himself, overall. Walking around your friend in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend. So if you add axial rotation to that motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side. You do have to be able to mentally add two motions together to understand my point, though, so that rules some of you out straight away.
Ok so Clint cited the NASA ISS Director as an authority because he knows what hes talking about.
But now that we get his whole quote, you are saying we should not listen to the NASA ISS Director because he does not know what hes talking about.
Hmmm.
#2
He contradicts himself, overall. Walking around your friend in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend. So if you add axial rotation to that motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side. You do have to be able to mentally add two motions together to understand my point, though, so that rules some of you out straight away.
Also simply stating something a fact certainly doesn’t make it a fact. To come up with an argument for the position one must find a way around the absurdity of it all:
”Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the only way is for YOU to revolve around the object in time with its rotation rate.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth revolves around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.”
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
Troll, begone.
Yeah, Ball4, the nerve of you to point out that their expert witness switched sides!
Oh well experts these days, so unreliable..
#2
Troll, begone.
Both cases Bindidon NASA is talking about sunlight rotation which is a different timing than rotation relative to the stars.
Nobody here has said the moon doesn’t rotate. The only discussion here is about the center of that rotation.
The word center isn’t even in your post. And the word axis is not in any of the quotes of NASA you offered as evidence of them looking at the axis. Worse even if they did use the word would it making any difference to anything they are interested in engineering wise? Nope!
Put another way NASA would only be interested in affects of an axis on spaceship control. The effects they worry about, and no longer do they worry about it for the moon, are gravitational anomalies introduced on a spaceships orbit. Near as I can tell astronomy and space flight has determined thats the only relevant concern to space craft spin, orbits, and the orientation of the space craft in that orbit.
Just throwing something irrelevant to the discussion against the wall is counter productive to the debate here.
hunter
Because the Moon’s rotation is locked to the period of its orbit of the Earth, it spins once a month…
Jesus hunter… are you really such a denier?
Or don’t you understand even such simple things?
Poor guy.
J.-P. D.
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you rotate around the object while it turns.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Oh well.
Yeah the DREMT is defeated again; just another day on the blog.
I don’t let your stupidity get me down.
Thanks for reading my stuff DREMT, apparently it is too correct for you and yours to ignore.
I can ignore you if you really want me to.
Thanks for reading my stuff DREMT, apparently it is too correct for you and yours to ignore.
How can it be? Its completely wrong.
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you rotate around the object while it turns.
Since I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
bill hunter says:
And the Moon does not rotate that way:
“Following perigee, the moon’s rotation can’t keep pace with its orbit, so a slice of the moon’s back side slips into view along the moon’s east (right) limb; following apogee, the moon’s rotation outpaces its slower orbit, causing a sliver of the moon’s back side to emerge along the west (left) limb.”
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration#longitude
Now they take 4 steps back to libration, like that hasn’t been discussed a hundred times before.
Sheesh.
We can add “libration” to their list of distractions. With enough distractions, they believe they can hide from reality. That’s why they’re idiots.
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
I built satellites
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
The NASA ISS Flight Director teaches reality:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
“If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
Svante libration isnt a rotation. if you want to maintain a consistent view call it the same 41% 100% of the time you have seen zero rotations so once again fo yo slo folk:
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
“If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?”
Already demonstrated bill, dodging reality is not becoming of you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-481720
Ball4 says:
June 6, 2020 at 8:59 AM
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Already demonstrated bill, dodging reality is not becoming of you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-481720
========================================
Ball4 the experiment fails because my arm can’t rotate in its shoulder socket.
Here is a more intuitive example of what you are trying to do. Stick a rod into the top of your head, be sure to sever the frontal cortex precisely, as we don’t want to screw this experiment up by you thinking about it. On top of the rod place a perpendicular arm and suspend the baseball from the end of the arm. Now turn your head on your shoulders 9 revolutions (again we disconnected the frontal cortex so you will be ignorant of the consequences and that should reduce your resistance to the idea) count the number of twists in the string. That will be evidence of how much the moon rotates. We will happily pass on the results of the experiment to your better half with a big thank you for the advancement of science. Thats almost certainly a once in a lifetime offer for you. Your name will go down in the annals of history about your contribution to science.
Bill continues to twist the pretzel 10:00am.
Bill’s arm can rotate in shoulder socket just not one rotation on its own axis like the moon per orbit of earth.
Just go here, bill, try to understand what DREMT, NASA guy, bob, ClintR, and the Madhavi text are trying to teach you about revolving.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-482475
Troll, begone.
Ball4 says:
June 6, 2020 at 11:31 AM
Bill continues to twist the pretzel 10:00am.
Bills arm can rotate in shoulder socket just not one rotation on its own axis like the moon per orbit of earth.
Just go here, bill, try to understand what DREMT, NASA guy, bob, ClintR, and the Madhavi text are trying to teach you about revolving.
=====================================
Why bother when you can email Dr. Madhavi right here and have her check your conclusion that the axis of rotation in Fig. 2(b) is really inside the rectangle because of the conclusion you drew from Fig. 1.
[email protected] go for it and bring your proof back here. I don’t need to do that because I can look at Fig. 2(b) and see that the only axis is outside of the rectangle as can anybody else not hallucinating.
bill, the plate rotation is as Fig. 1, orbiting is as Fig. 2, no need to email, just try to learn about orbiting from DREMT walking around a friend:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-482475
Ball4 says:
June 6, 2020 at 2:15 PM
bill, the plate rotation is as Fig. 1, orbiting is as Fig. 2, no need to email, just try to learn about orbiting from DREMT walking around a friend:
=========================
If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
bill dodges the demonstration of reality, again. Try to understand what ClintR is trying to teach bill, except the part about bob who also gets it right:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-482642
#2
Troll, begone.
svante…”Following perigee, the moons rotation cant keep pace with its orbit, so a slice of the moons back side slips into view along the moons east (right) limb; ”
There is no physical rotation of the Moon in libration, it is an apparent motion due to an observer on Earth experiencing relative motion. We see more of the near face at times due to our viewing angle.
The article at the link you posted has several serious errors. Look very closely at the one which shows the Moon orbiting with the same side always inward. They claim it rotates ‘about its axis’ once per orbit, which is wrong.
Imagine a radial line from the Earth through the near side and watch it again. The action is no different, as dremt has pointed out several times, than a ball orbiting while held by a string. With the ball and string, it’s not possible for the ball to rotate about its COG without wrapping itself around the string. It is exactly the same with the Moon.
All points on the Moon in the aforementioned example are orbiting in concentric orbits. It is the tangent line drawn through the middle of the Moon that is creating an illusion of rotation. The tangent line does rotate through 360 degrees, VISUALLY, but that is not the action of the Moon in its orbit. Just remove the Moon and watch the tangent line turn with the radial line to which it is attached.
A tangent line on any circle will rotate through 360 degrees due to its definition. The tangent line is perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth to the Moon. As the radial line rotates through 360 degrees, the tangent line must as well, by definition. That has nothing to do with the real, physical motion of the Moon in its orbit, with the same face always pointing in, which is curvilinear translation.
Correcting Gordon 11:52pm to reality of observation including time:
With the ball and string, it’s not possible for the ball to rotate about its COG more or less than once per orbit without wrapping itself around the string.
Gordon botches time in his comment because Gordon incorrectly writes time does not exist.
#3
Troll, begone.
Gordon Robertson says:
“We see more of the near face at times due to our viewing angle.”
Do the trigonometry Gordon:
Distance: 384400 km.
Earth radius: 6371 km.
Angle: 2*0.95 deg.
Surprise, it’s not enough.
DREMT, bill, Gordon, show us your math.
Yes, Svante, we have libration on the distractions list.
Librations are on the
‘Evidence non-spinners must ignore because we cannot explain them with Fig 2b’ list.
#2
Yes, Svante, we have libration on the distractions list.
hunter
” If its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face. And that one and only way is for you rotate around the object while it turns. ”
*
A while ago you wrote a comment looking quite convenient, but it seems that I completely misunderstood it. You keep in denial of evidence.
The problem is that neither you nor any of your friends-in-denial did demonstrate anything of scientific value.
You all stay in guessing and simply pretending to be right, just because Tesla made a superficial quick shot 100 years ago…
*
I know: you won’t read these papers, let alone would you understand their contents:
1. Analytical lunar libration tables
A. Migus (1980)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X7Eyv97WGltsmuoLqFm6hYA0R16pt2UW/view
2. Analytical theory of the libration of the Moon
M. Moons (1982)
https://tinyurl.com/yd236z6h
{ I hope you’ll be a bit less dumb than your friend Robertson, who reads ‘libration’ in a paper’s title, stops reading even before the abstract, and writes “This is about libration, and not about rotation”. }
Having had, during my professional life, to solve highly complex tasks in a quite different area, I can’t understand everything in these papers; but engineers can detect the analytical strength behind what they read.
*
My impression, hunter, is that even if a person with highest math background would engineer a software perfectly reproducing Sun’s, Earth’s and Moon’s behavior alltogether, allowing you to see the Moon from various points in space, you still would stay in denial and say:
” No, that doesn’t prove anything, it’s faked, it’s a model, not the reality as we see it. ”
*
I repeat:
What matters, is that none of the ignorant “non”idiots were ever associated to the preparation of the Apollo missions. These luminaries would have moved such missions into indescribable disasters.
Luckily, these missions were organised by intelligent people.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon keeps on commenting, despite saying he would stop some time ago…
Bindidon believes the engineering the lunar landing proves the Moon is “rotating about its axis”. The reality is that engineering the lunar landing proves the Moon is “orbiting” and “not rotating about its axis.”
But Bindidon is not good at reality and logic.
Bindidon, you assume that the space mission people adjust paths to the moon to account for libration.
Engineers account not for libration but instead account for the tilt of the moon’s orbit and its elliptical path.
And libration is not a rotation. Rotation is a full 360 degree turn. When is the last time you saw the moon rotate 360 degrees?
Fact is it hasn’t ever been seen to turn on its own axis? The only turning going on is a turn created by its orbit a movement that can easily demonstrated with an experimental set up.
It only becomes a more complicated experiment when the moons tilt via earth’s gravity pulling the face of the moon back from its orbit a tiny bit. But the ‘basic’ principles are so easy to duplicate a 7 year old would probably quickly get bored.
Are you so inculcated your reasoning has been reduced well beyond that?
hunter
I was sure you wouldn’t even try to read these papers…
You did not understand a bit of the relation between libration and rotation.
And above all, you denigrate the result of science people WITHOUT being able to perform any scientific contradiction!
Keep feeling well in your dumb, arrogant certitudes, hunter, no problem for me.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon I don’t need to do that as I have already provided a reference for what libration here several days ago. NASA’s explanation of it.
Pseudomod
I never thought you wouldn’t know that sometimes, events can affect decisions.
C’est la vie, Frenchies love to say.
J.-P. D.
I just find it funny that the Non-Spinners always get blamed for these discussions going on and on, when clearly the Spinners are just as involved in keeping it going.
Pseudomod
You were the origin of the restart of this discussion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-467813
That’s right, and proud of it. I enjoy talking about it and much prefer it to endless repetitive discussions of temperature trends. However, I am not responsible for the 1,200 Spinner comments, am I?
No since DREMT is usually, but not always, responsible for the incorrect comments on the subject of rigid body dynamics.
If DREMT were incorrect all the time, one could just place a minus sign in front of the DREMT comments. That doesn’t always work, one has to consult the NASA guy, Madhavi text, bob, et. al. (but not wiki) to figure out when DREMT does get it right.
Troll, begone.
Ball4, you’ve already tried “misrepresenting others”. You need to conger up a new distraction.
Unless you’ve run out of ideas.
Ball4 says:
No since DREMT is usually, but not always, responsible for the incorrect comments on the subject of rigid body dynamics.
=================================
Typical science by proclamation coming from Ball4.
Better placement: Actually science of rigid body dynamics by demonstration and Madhavi text book explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-481720
Ball4 says:
Actually nonscience of rigid body dynamics by demonstration and Madhavi text book misexplanation.
Simple logic a young child can understand.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
The Madhavi text supports the Non-Spinners. Hence why I linked to it.
Correct DREMT 5:44pm, as shown in Madhavi Fig. 2(a). You are right also when you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute:
“Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
which is illustrated in Fig. 2(b) “rotation”. Pay attention to Clint R who also agrees with the NASA guy, Madhavi, and bob if you have any doubts.
#2
Troll, begone.
Actually science of rigid body dynamics by demonstration and Madhavi text book explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-481720
#2
Actually nonscience of rigid body dynamics by demonstration and Madhavi text book misexplanation.
Simple logic a young child can understand.
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
There is another way, namely that the object revolves around you.
That’s correct bob; I see bill still dodges your demonstration of reality and continually refines the art of pretzel twisting.
bobdroege says:
There is another way, namely that the object revolves around you.
=======================
Yes thats correct, in an orbit spinning on the center of me.
With the object spinning once per orbit.
You are almost there.
Yep almost there as soon as I install a motor under the moon at the end of the arm holding it out in an orbit so as it can unwind its turn around the orbital axis that holds it steady via tidal friction. Indeed almost there but at a very significant engineering feat for the moon I would say. Sometimes almost is a long long ways to go considering the technology involved in doing that.
“Yep almost there as soon as I install a motor under the moon at the end of the arm holding it out in an orbit so as it can unwind its turn around the orbital axis that holds it steady via tidal friction. ”
Tidal friction, slowing something over MILLIONS OF YEARS… Bill extrapolates that to instantaneously “holding something steady”.
Nate says:
Yep almost there as soon as I install a motor under the moon at the end of the arm holding it out in an orbit so as it can unwind its turn around the orbital axis that holds it steady via tidal friction.
Tidal friction, slowing something over MILLIONS OF YEARS Bill extrapolates that to instantaneously holding something steady.
===========================
Lying again I see. Strawman! I never said any such thing about frictional torque.
ball4…your link points to a reply by bobd…
“Try this one Gordon, its not a thought experiment.
Take a basketball, that will represent the Earth.
Take a smaller ball, say a baseball, and paint a face on it.
Try to move the baseball around the basketball, keeping the face towards the basketball, and without adjusting your grip on the baseball.
How many revolutions can you achieve?”
If I hold the smaller ball in my hand and walk around the basketball I can keep the face on the smaller ball always pointing to the basketball. I have a grip on the smaller ball, so the face on the smaller ball cannot rotate in my hand.
Does that not defeat your argument? The small ball cannot rotate on its axis since I am holding it, yet I can walk around the basketball keeping the face toward the basketball and replicating the motion of the Moon in its orbit.
If I put the basketball on a table, I can move the smaller ball 3/4 of the way around the basketball but I must keep applying a twist to the smaller ball to keep it facing the basketball. I am still gripping the smaller ball so it cannot rotate on its axis. The twisting motion I applied is the same effect gravity has on the linear momentum of the Moon. It forces it into a curvilinear path where all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles.
No local rotation.
You are twisting the ball on an axis through your arm to your shoulder.
It should be obvious why you can only do 3/4 of a full rotation, because your shoulder joint can only rotate that far.
by now it should have been absolutely obvious to Bob that the non-spinner position has the moon rotating just not on its own axis.
It’s such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
There are two axes involved, a point you clowns refuse to acknowledge, one the moon revolves around and one the moon rotates around and they are not parallel.
So you are an engineer?
Build your model of the earth moon system, and to do it properly you will have to take the two axes into consideration or you will be shoveling the french fries into their little boxes.
So where did you study physics, is it too late to get your money back?
blob, an axis implies rotation. If the moon were rotating about one orbital axis whilst also rotating about a second rotational axis then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
That is a simple statement of fact about the product of two simultaneous rotations.
bobdroege says:
There are two axes involved, a point you clowns refuse to acknowledge, one the moon revolves around and one the moon rotates around and they are not parallel.
=====================================
Simply a limitation of your engineering abilities Bob. Carnies have been putting tilted orbits on thrill rides with vertical axes for centuries.
bobdroege says:
So you are an engineer?
=================================
Obviously a better one than you.
bobdroege says:
Build your model of the earth moon system, and to do it properly you will have to take the two axes into consideration or you will be shoveling the french fries into their little boxes.
===========================
Yes obviously I took two axes in consideration here:
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
So how is it you know about shoveling french fries into little boxes?
Hmmm, reminds me of one of my first classes in philosophy. What does a circular disk look like when mounted tilted on a vertical axis from a view directly above the axis?
An ellipse!
Jeez, where I went to school that was taught in high school trig.
Conic sections.
You don’t have to study math to get a Philosophy degree, go back to navel gazing.
How did you like underwater basket weaving, I heard it was a fun course.
And you can get a degree in math without studying logic and philosophy.
Which happens to be more dangerous.
I am not an engineer and never claimed to be one, though I correct people who refer to me as an engineer, son of one, but no.
I do think they are good at skinning cats, as I often observe that they in general, have often come up with multiple solutions to the same problem.
This was wrong the first time you posted it, and it’s still wrong.
“Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.”
Synchronous rotation is one you are missing.
Google it for once, do research to support your position.
So yeah, you need a mechanism like a carny ride to build your earth moon model, like I said before, your grape on a toothpick fails because the axis of the moon points to one point in the celestial sphere.
What kind of engineer are you, do you wear a striped hat at the zoo?
bobdroege says:
Synchronous rotation is one you are missing.
==================================
If its a rotation on the moon’s own axis you will see all sides of the moon as it orbits. If synchronous rotation is not a rotation on the moons own axis, like instead on the orbital axis, then it can have a pass.
See dear unemployed engineer.
It’s only a synchronous orbit if you only see one side of it from inside the orbit
“synchronous rotation. The rotation of an orbiting body on its axis in the same amount of time as it takes to complete a full orbit, with the result that the same face is always turned toward the body it is orbiting.”
If you can see all sides, it’s not a synchronous rotation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-483277
Your lack of understanding what synchronous rotation is don’t confront me.
If you can see all sides, its not a synchronous rotation.
Your claim that if it is synchronous rotation you will see all sides is refuted by the definition of synchronous rotation.
you lose
This all just goes straight over your head. Not sure why I waste my time.
bobdroege says:
Your lack of understanding what synchronous rotation is dont confront me.
If you can see all sides, its not a synchronous rotation.
Your claim that if it is synchronous rotation you will see all sides is refuted by the definition of synchronous rotation.
you lose
================================
Would that be similar to synchronous rotation of gearing in a syncromesh transmission?
Bill Hunter,
Why don’t you just google synchromesh transmission and synchronous rotation and see if they are similar.
Don’t take my word that they are different.
OK so astronomers speak a foreign language. Would that be similar to Chinese?
bobdroege says:
June 9, 2020 at 3:07 PM
Your lack of understanding what synchronous rotation is dont confront me.
If you can see all sides, its not a synchronous rotation.
Your claim that if it is synchronous rotation you will see all sides is refuted by the definition of synchronous rotation.
you lose
====================================
thats not what he said Bob. He said if synchronous rotation means a rotation separate from the rotation provided by an orbit that adds up to 2 rotations on separate axes you will have to see all sides of the other object.
Synchronous rotation is simply a rotation identical in everyway to the second rotation and astronomy just elected to view it as a separate rotation. Maybe a left over from the earliest days of astronomy. You know like pig latin or the Da Vinci Code or secret coder rings to identify other astronomers or something like that.
“…while you maintain a consistent view of one face…”
But that has nothing to do with whether or not the moon is spinning or rotating.
The moon goes behind the earth every day for a while, but when it comes back in to view, you see the same side.
DREMT claims correctly “..while you maintain a consistent view of one face…”…when you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute because DREMT wrote: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”.
It’s really simple DREMT; critically read Madhavi, ClintR agreeing with NASA guy, bob, Nate et. al. Except bill who is out in left field watching butterflies while twisting pretzels; bill can’t even get the rigid body dynamics definitions right or understand the physical demonstrations.
That’s right, blob, you “maintain a consistent view of one face”…
…because the moon is orbiting (rotating about) the Earth-moon barycenter, and not rotating on its own axis.
Orbiting (revolving) and Rotating (spinning)
Both motions are observed.
Where did you study physics?
Now DREMT contradicts himself and botches the definition of rotation. Actually, if you try bob’s demonstration DREMT, you won’t be so confused. But it is so entertaining seeing DREMT in such a state, I’d rather DREMT not get in touch with reality.
No blob, just orbiting is observed.
Like walking in a circle around your friend, remember? You always show the same side to your friend if you walk in a circle around them. Or, like a ball on a string.
Where did you study physics?
bob’s inability to find where physics classes are held is now documented.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-482722
ClintR admits he didn’t study physics and therefore doesn’t know what he is posting about.
bob can’t find an argument so he goes ad hominem and attempts to discredit rather than cite, calculate, and lay out a logical argument.
Of course I don’t blame you Bob, you can’t do any of those things because. . . .wait for it. . . .
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Bill Hunter proceeds to demonstrate that he never studied physics and doesn’t know what an ad hom is.
And quite simply there are two way to maintain a constant view of one face of an object that is rotating on its axis, one is that the object is revolving around you at the same rate as it is rotating.
Now I am using those two terms to mean different thing so don’t go running to your thesaurus.
And if you had studied physics you would understand and since you don’t you must not have studied physics and don’t know what you are posting about.
So at a full moon the near side of the moon faces the sun, and at a new moon the near side faces away from the sun, so to go from a full moon to a new moon the moon rotates half a turn or 180 degrees. All the while keeping the same face to the Earth.
Simple
But you don’t do my simple experiments and you can’t refute anything I have posted.
Hey can I have an order of fries?
B Hunter endlessly repeats himself, stating an obviously wrong conclusion:
Allow me to remind you that every Earth Observing Satellite in Geo-Stationary orbit constantly faces the Earth as it orbits, rotating once every 24 hours. From the viewpoint of someone on the ground, those satellites do not appear to be rotating, presenting the same “face” to the ground all the time. Are you REALLY going to apply your absolutist statement to these satellites and claim that the Earth rotates around them?
Then, you continue, concluding:
I can only laugh, since your conclusion is so hopelessly wrong headed.
Swanson, you claimed that you had “built satellites”. But, you were unable to tell us the names of any of the satellites you built.
Does it hurt when reality smacks you in the face?
I’m not interested in replying to ClintR’s ad hominem post, since didn’t answer my question in reply to his last query.
Besides, the post has no bearing on satellite dynamics or physics.
Perhaps ClintR is trying to recruit people to work in the Trumpian Space Force. Count me out, I’m retired.
Swanson, you’re not “interested in replying” because you got caught making up nonsense. You idiots don’t understand that it takes more nonsense to cover up nonsense. That’s all you seem capable of doing, just making up nonsense.
Dont have the facts on your side? Just attack the messenger.
BTW you did indeed misrepresent the opinion of the NASA ISS dude as supportive of your beliefs, thru lying by omission.
All in all lame tactics, JD-Clint.
swannie…”Allow me to remind you that every Earth Observing Satellite in Geo-Stationary orbit constantly faces the Earth as it orbits, rotating once every 24 hours. From the viewpoint of someone on the ground, those satellites do not appear to be rotating, presenting the same “face” to the ground all the time”.
That’s because they are not rotating, they are orbiting on a curvilinear path. A radial line from Earth’s centre through the satellite reveals that. The portion of the line passing through the sat from the near face does not rotate about the sat’s COG. The line remains part of the sweeping radial line therefore all points on the line trace out concentric circles/ellipses. Since the COG is moving in an outer circle to the near face, the near face can never rotate about it.
bobd…”And quite simply there are two way to maintain a constant view of one face of an object that is rotating on its axis, one is that the object is revolving around you at the same rate as it is rotating”.
Bob…that is an illusion, you are seeing what you are conditioned to see. Many people who have not studied science think the Sun rotates around the Earth because it ‘seems’ to do that.
You will never see that till you try to do it using two coins or two spheres. It is not possible to do what you have described. Simply put, it is not possible for a sphere to rotate around its axis once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed to the other sphere.
Imagine two spheres side by side with a radial line from the stationary sphere’s centre drawn through 3 o’clock, entering the moving sphere at 9 o’clock, going through its centre and out the other end at 3 o’clock.
If the entry point on the moving sphere is at 9 o’clock, that point must rotate 360 degrees around the centre of the orbiting sphere during one orbit and that would mean the portion of of the radial line between 9 and 3 would have to rotate through 360 degrees.
It cannot be done while keeping the 9 o’clock position facing the centre of the stationary sphere. To do that, the portion of the radial line through the orbiting body must remain part of the total radial line from the centre of the stationary sphere. That means all points on the orbiting portion of the radial line are moving in concentric circles, a condition which makes rotation about the axis impossible.
Gordon,
Look at the Moon spin
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130916.html
Gordon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Look at the gif on the left
It is doing exactly what you say is impossible
If you could draw your lines on the gif you would see it.
So you are dumber than a bunch of Babylonians who knew the Moon was rotating.
No, Gordo, those satellites aren’t “orbiting on a curvilinear path”. They are orbiting, but the fact that they face the Earth is the result of their electro-mechanical control system, which causes them to rotate once each orbit to meet the requirement that they face the Earth below. If the control system fails or is switched off, their rate of rotation will likely change due to external forcing. The low altitude ones would still continue to orbit the Earth until drag forces cause the orbit to decay. Those at geo-stationary orbit would be there for a very long time.
swannie…”They are orbiting, but the fact that they face the Earth is the result of their electro-mechanical control system, which causes them to rotate once each orbit to meet the requirement that they face the Earth below. If the control system fails or is switched off, their rate of rotation will likely change due to external forcing”.
Sounds to me that the sats are affected by Earth’s atmosphere near the outer edge. That would account for external forces causing them to rotate and that’s why you’d need retros to balance the torque.
That’s not the same problem we are discussing here where the Moon is not affected by the Earth’s atmosphere.
The highest altitude sats are flying at about 36,000 km max. The Moon is 384,400 km. The highest altitude of the atmosphere is only about 10,000 km.
Seems to me any onboard rotation devices are for cameras and other sensors to keep them pointed squarely at the Earth. As Tim has often pointed out, in an eccentric orbit, the near face does not always point to the centre of the Earth but deviates slightly in the more eccentric parts of the orbit. Therefore satellite rotation adjustments would be small.
Some interesting stuff on sats:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OrbitsCatalog
bobd…”Look at the gif on the left”
Focus on it really hard…I mean really hard. Keep watching it till your brain syncs with the motion.
Imagine a radial line from the centre of the stationary circle going through the dark splotch on the near side and out the other side of the orbiting body. If you follow the radial line you will see clearly that the orbiting body is not rotating.
When you get your brain synced, focus on both the imaginary rotating radial line and the rotating body.
The portion of the radial line through the rotating body is not rotating. All points on that interior portion of the radial line are orbiting the stationary circle in concentric circles. That is curvilinear translation.
bobd…now you’ve got me saying it, I meant orbiting body.
“When you get your brain synced, focus on both the imaginary rotating radial line and the rotating body”.
should read…
“When you get your brain synced, focus on both the imaginary rotating radial line and the orbiting body”.
Of course, I used rotating in lieu of orbiting, so I was not referring to local rotation about an axis.
Gordon,
When I focus really hard I can imagine a line from the center of the circle through the dark blotch of the moon all the way through the moon to the far side, rotating counterclockwise, indicating that indeed the moon is indeed rotating.
E. Swanson says:
June 7, 2020 at 7:38 AM
B Hunter endlessly repeats himself, stating an obviously wrong conclusion:
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
Allow me to remind you that every Earth Observing Satellite in Geo-Stationary orbit constantly faces the Earth as it orbits, rotating once every 24 hours. From the viewpoint of someone on the ground, those satellites do not appear to be rotating, presenting the same face to the ground all the time. Are you REALLY going to apply your absolutist statement to these satellites and claim that the Earth rotates around them?
Then, you continue, concluding:
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
I can only laugh, since your conclusion is so hopelessly wrong headed.
==========================================
You have simply confused yourself Swanson. We are saying the moon rotates around the earth, not the earth rotating around the moon which would be necessitated by the restriction to maintain a single face. We are saying its done with one revolution with the moon stuck on the end of the rotator arm like a grape on a toothpick. To make it rotate differently than that would require a powerful motor to turn it out of time with the orbital rotation around the orbital axis You would need a motor to overcome the tidal friction.
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take couple of degrees say to account for other tidal forces from the sun). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
bobdroege says:
Gordon,
When I focus really hard I can imagine a line from the center of the circle through the dark blotch of the moon all the way through the moon to the far side, rotating counterclockwise, indicating that indeed the moon is indeed rotating.
===============================
Thats what we are saying the moon is rotating like a stick extending from a merry-go-round axis through the COG of the moon and indeed the moon is rotating on that merry-go-round’s axis.
bobd…”When I focus really hard I can imagine a line from the center of the circle through the dark blotch of the moon all the way through the moon to the far side, rotating counterclockwise, indicating that indeed the moon is indeed rotating”.
The line you see rotating within the Moon is not a rotation about an axis since it’s part of the radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon. The radial line actually represent a force holding the Moon in orbit but you cannot see it like you would a ball on a string.
You can’t just consider the portion through the Moon, that radial line is moving with angular velocity and you are only seeing part of it through the Moon. The apparent rotation is a product of the Moon being held in its orbit by gravity.
When I say the radial line is moving with angular velocity I am aware that gravity is a field and not moving. However, the Moon is moving and to track it you need the radial line. It’s marking the instantaneous position of the Moon in its orbit. Therefore you can’t detach the portion through the Moon and claim it is rotating about a local axis. Keep it attached to the radial line and it will make more sense.
Look again. Each point on that line is moving in concentric circles around the stationary circle. Points moving in concentric circle can’t rotate about a local centre.
Gordo wrote:
I see from you link that you did some homework. But, you still don’t understand that those lower altitude man-made satellites follow the same dynamics as the Moon as they “observe” the Earth. That there are other torques involved does not change the basic dynamics. They all rotate once an orbit. That’s a fact of physics which still eludes all of you so-called “non-spinners”.
Just declaring it is a “fact of physics” is not an argument, Swanso.
The grape on a stick model isn’t going to cut it.
For one
You need some sort of hydraulic mechanism to change the length of the stick to properly model the elliptical orbit.
For two
The motor that rotates the stick needs to be variable speed to properly model the elliptical orbit.
For three
You need an actuator on the toothpick the grape is stuck on to keep the axis of the grape pointed correctly, as it points in the same direction to the same spot in the celestial sphere. If this isn’t done properly, the axis of the grape would trace a circle in the celestial sphere rather than remain pointed to one spot.
For four
The stick has to be rotating on a different axis than the earth is spinning on and at a different rate, this is probably the hardest thing to engineer.
bobdroege says:
The grape on a stick model isnt going to cut it.
For one
You need some sort of hydraulic mechanism to change the length of the stick to properly model the elliptical orbit.
==================================
This is non-distinctive and applies in all cases thus its not part of the debate. However, you don’t need a hydraulic mechanism. An elastic mechanism not subject to friction, like gravity works just fine in space where there is no air resistance.
bobdroege says:
For two
The motor that rotates the stick needs to be variable speed to properly model the elliptical orbit.
==================================
Nope the elastic model doesn’t need to be rotated at a variable speed. And again it applies in every case. The moon spinning on its own axis is absurd with or without the elastic nature of an orbit.
bobdroege says:
For three
You need an actuator on the toothpick the grape is stuck on to keep the axis of the grape pointed correctly, as it points in the same direction to the same spot in the celestial sphere. If this isnt done properly, the axis of the grape would trace a circle in the celestial sphere rather than remain pointed to one spot.
=====================================
Egads! Sober up!
bobdroege says:
For four
The stick has to be rotating on a different axis than the earth is spinning on and at a different rate, this is probably the hardest thing to engineer.
==============================
Gravity should work just fine. It is true modeling all the motions brought out by gravity is difficult but each motion is rather simple to model.
Ultimately:
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for you to rotate around the object while it turns.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth rotates around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
Bill Hunter,
Navel gazing won’t help you model the Moon’s rotation about Earth.
The first thing you should learn is the actual properties of said orbit.
Don’t let me stop you Bob. Carry on!
Bill Hunter,
You do know the plane the moon orbits the earth is tilted with respect to plane perpendicular to the axis the earth rotates around?
Well you would if you looked at the cites I have provided.
But it means your merry-go-round model doesn’t work.
bobdroege says:
Bill Hunter,
You do know the plane the moon orbits the earth is tilted with respect to plane perpendicular to the axis the earth rotates around?
Well you would if you looked at the cites I have provided.
But it means your merry-go-round model doesnt work.
=======================================
Nothing unusual or exceptional there. Carnies have been providing tilted thrill rides for at least as I have been around.
bobd…”You do know the plane the moon orbits the earth is tilted with respect to plane perpendicular to the axis the earth rotates around?”
About 5 degrees. If you trace the apparent path of the Sun across the day sky, then trace the Moon’s path across the night sky, in the opposite direction, they follow almost the same path. The measuring plane is the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun but it’s quite tilted wrt to the tangential plane from which I observe it in Vancouver Canada.. The Moon’s orbital plane is about 5 degrees tilted from that plane.
Amazingly, the orbital planes of most of the planets are within a few degrees of each other.
“Gravity should work just fine.”
The TEAM says with confidence, yet is totally unable to explain how it does that, absent Lunar spin.
Oh well, thats how religion explains things.
“You do know the plane the moon orbits the earth is tilted with respect to plane perpendicular to the axis the earth rotates around?”
Yes.
Nate says:
“Gravity should work just fine.”
The TEAM says with confidence, yet is totally unable to explain how it does that, absent Lunar spin.
Oh well, thats how religion explains things.
=======================================
Absent lunar spin? The moon spins around the earth Nate. No absenteeism. Orbiting systems as well as merry-go-rounds all have the forces that produce the same things. You are trying to make a differentiation where none exists.
bob, in the first one, you need to understand “LRO”.
In your second one, the left graphic is not rotating about its axis. It is only orbiting. You can tell by the fact it keeps one face toward Earth. The right graphic is both orbiting and rotating about its axis.
Remember the example of orbiting, from the NASA guy: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
ClintR
This is what NASA actually says
“From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon is spinning on its axis at the same speed that it is going around Earth (that is, it is in synchronous rotation with Earth).”
bobd…”From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon is spinning on its axis at the same speed that it is going around Earth ”
And they are wrong. I have written to NASA to explain their error. If they are smart enough to see it I doubt they will acknowledge it.
They will not change it Gordon. If they correct this, their entire “house of cards” starts to collapse. The corrections won’t come until the “swamp is drained”. It will cause a (much needed) earthquake thoughout colleges and universities.
Since NASA named the probe they sent to Saturn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens
after the guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Domenico_Cassini
who developed these laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
over 300 years ago, I doubt they are going to do much with your request other than laugh and file it appropriately.
Moon precessing 360 degrees about its imaginary rotational axis would be evidence that it is only orbiting, and has zero angular momentum about its center of mass.
But, that’s much too technical for idiots with “arts and letters” backgrounds.
You would know more if you graduated college.
But you didn’t.
bobdroege says:
Since NASA named the probe they sent to Saturn
after the guy
who developed these laws
over 300 years ago, I doubt they are going to do much with your request other than laugh and file it appropriately.
=====================================
Well you might then just find it profoundly interesting (and you too Swanson) that the engineering of sending a probe to Saturn or a satellite into orbit doesn’t change because because the model changes. There still is orbital angular momentum and a rotation. . . .you only get into trouble if you start double counting everything.
bob, I’m sorry that you must go through life making false claims about others.
If only you had got a meaningful degree…
Sorry ClintR
For busting you for lying about what Robert Frost from NASA actually said.
You get farther in life by not lying.
Good one Clint
“Moon precessing 360 degrees about its imaginary rotational axis would be evidence that it is only orbiting, and has zero angular momentum about its center of mass.”
You should learn that in order for something to exhibit precession, it has to be rotating.
But you would know that if you had a liberal arts education, with a major in say, Physics.
bob, now I’m beginning to doubt you even have an “arts and letters” degree.
You can’t seem to comprehend my words: “Moon precessing 360 degrees about its imaginary rotational axis…”
I’m showing that your false premise results in invalid results.
It’s too much for idiots to grasp.
Nope Clint I have a science degree. As I said here I changed majors during my last quarter for an ”arts and letters” degree because I had no desire to be the Pope’s(generically) librarian(generically).
ClintR,
You are quite confused, but this statement
“You cant seem to comprehend my words: Moon precessing 360 degrees about its imaginary rotational axis
If the moon is preccessing, that means it has to be rotating…
So I award you Spinner 4th class junior space cadet level…
provisionally of course, but
welcome to the spinners club.
Of course axes are imaginary lines things rotate around, but I think you know that, doesn’t mean the spinning is imaginary.
If you are lying it’s hard to keep the story straight!
bill, I think Clint was talking to bob about the degree thing…
you are right DREMT
No bob, that’s what some “Arts and Letters” type said.
Remember the example of orbiting, from the NASA ISS Flight Director: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.” The fact that we only see one face of Moon proves it is not rotating about its axis.
“Arts and Letters” is not “Science”.
I have a bachelor of arts and sciences with letters.
Can you prove the Nasa guy actually said that, all I found looking through the thread was missing a cite.
Care to re-provide that?
This is what NASA actually says
“From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon is spinning on its axis at the same speed that it is going around Earth (that is, it is in synchronous rotation with Earth).”
See, NASA says the moon is spinning on its axis.
bobdroege says:
I have a bachelor of arts and sciences with letters.
This is what NASA actually says
From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon is spinning on its axis at the same speed that it is going around Earth (that is, it is in synchronous rotation with Earth).
See, NASA says the moon is spinning on its axis.
=======================================
You might want to seek a refund on what you paid for that degree as the earth rotates at a different rate than the moon rotates.
Really Bill Hunter,
You might want to at least try to distinguish rotating and revolving, cause getting them mixed up makes you look stupid.
bobdroege says:
Really Bill Hunter,
You might want to at least try to distinguish rotating and revolving, cause getting them mixed up makes you look stupid.
==========================
You certainly have the mixed up:
Its such an easy thing to demonstrate why do you continually refuse to do it?
Quite simply there is only one way to rotate an object on its own axis while you maintain a consistent view of one face from a roughly perpendicular viewpoint from the axis (give or take 7 degrees say). And the and only way is for YOU to revolve around the object in time with its rotation rate.
I sort of doubt you are going to start claiming the earth revolves around the moon; therefore, the idea that the moon rotates on its own axis is absurd.
You are looking pretty stupid Bill.
And as for a refund for my degree, I didn’t pay a dime for it, all scholarship.
Well like they say you get what you pay for.
Here is the site where NASA says the Moon is spinning on its axis.
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/in-depth/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/10/03/how-does-the-iss-travel-around-the-earth/#13b7c67c141f
Checkmate again, you have been promoted to Spinner Level 2.
“If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. Thats what the ISS does.”
…that statement contradicts his own definitions of revolving and axial rotation, though. He contradicts himself, but it does not change the fact that his definitions are correct.
No he doesn’t contradict himself, but if he did, then he’s unreliable, and why are you clowns using an unreliable source for your arguments.
Half a quote, half a quote, half a quote onward, into the jaws of death rode the four horsemen of denial.
I couldn’t quite get the meter right, but then I’m not a poet,just an analytical chemist.
The source came from Norman, a Spinner. He had not noticed the contradiction, just as you are unable to.
That’s because there is not contradiction.
But that didn’t stop you and ClintR from quoting only two thirds of it.
In my book that’s called lying.
Contradiction explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475632
bobdroege says:
In my book thats called lying.
==============================
Thats only because your mind is a closed book.
Well you should open your mind to the whole quote from NASA’s Robert Frost, but no, he contradicts almost you say.
These definitions:
If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving. If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.
Are fine. He just contradicts them in the next sentence.
Apparently you are like Gerald Ford, you can’t chew bubble gum and fart at the same time.
The rest of us agree with Frost, you can revolve and rotate at the same time, just like every satellite that has been observed throughout the solar system.
I’m not arguing that you can’t do both. I’m arguing that when you do both, your friend sees all sides of you from the center of the orbit.
DREMPTY,
It depends on the speed of rotation doesn’t it?
If an object is not rotating you see all sides.
If an object is rotating faster than it is revolving you see all sides.
If an object is rotating at the same speed as it is revolving you only see one side, like the moon.
You are simply too stupid to understand.
Then there is the last part
“Imagine it this way your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving. If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating. If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. Thats what the ISS does.
The ISS revolves around the Earth at about 17,500 mph (~28,000 km/h) resulting in it completing one revolution in about 90 minutes, and about 16 revolutions per day.
Most Popular In: Tech
What Do Companies Misunderstand About Cloud Security?
How Will The Global Economy Recover From COVID-19?
As An Investor, Here Is My Best Advice For Startup CEOs
The ISS rotates about its center of mass at a rate of about 4 degrees per minute so that it will complete a full rotation once per orbit. This allows it to keep its belly towards the Earth.”
I’ll repeat the last bit
“This allows it to keep its belly towards the Earth.
What part of that do you not understand?
Walking around your friend in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend. So if you add axial rotation to that motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side. You do have to be able to mentally add two motions together to understand my point, though, so that rules you out straight away, blob…
DREMT leaves out time because DREMT is misled by Gordon that time does not exist. I’ll add time as per bob’s earlier example:
Walking around your friend on external axis once a minute revolving in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend by rotating once a minute on your own internal axis. So if you add axial rotation greater or less than once a minute to that rotation motion, but not the revolving motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side.
Correct, you do have to be able to mentally add two motions together to understand this point to concur with bob, Madhavi text, ClintR quoting the NASA guy, others, and DREMT’s correct comments where you are: “both orbiting and rotating on your own axis” in this example both at once a minute.
It’s really simple when you don’t botch the definitions of rotation (internal axis) and revolve (external axis).
Troll, begone.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Again you are wrong with this statement
“Walking around your friend in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend. So if you add axial rotation to that motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side. You do have to be able to mentally add two motions together to understand my point, though, so that rules you out straight away, blob”
You see I have moves like Mick Jagger, and every time I take a step, I do a half spin, then a step and a half spin, so that as I walk around you, no, I do not keep the same side to you.
For the encore, I can walk around you facing the same direction the whole time, again not keeping the same side to you.
Never ending stupidity from you.
Nothing more nothing less
Exactly, blob. When you combine both motions, the person in the middle sees all sides of you. Well done.
Yes, DREMT you got it, since as you wrote “both orbiting and rotating on your own axis” except in the special case of revolving about external axis and rotating about internal axis both at once a minute when the person in the middle sees only one side of you as explained by bob, ClintR quoting the NASA guy, others, and Madhavi text on rigid body dynamics.
Just add time, don’t botch the definition of revolve, and even DREMT can get rigid body dynamics correct.
#2
Troll, begone.
Nope DREMPTY
As I am trying to explain to you, it depends on the speed of rotation.
There is only one speed where you only see one side, that being the synchronous speed.
Any other speed you can see all sides, but the one like the Moon, which is spinning synchronously with the orbital speed, you only see one side, and it is rotating and revolving.
You are kind of a blockhead.
#2
Walking around your friend in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend. So if you add axial rotation to that motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side. You do have to be able to mentally add two motions together to understand my point, though, so that rules you out straight away, blob
Walking around your friend on external axis once a minute revolving in a circle already necessitates continually showing one side of your body to your friend by rotating once a minute on your own internal axis. So if you add axial rotation greater or less than once a minute to that rotation motion, but not the revolving motion, in either direction and at any speed, your friend ends up seeing all sides of you. Not the same side.
#3
Troll, begone.
ball4…your link points to a reply by bobd…
“Try this one Gordon, it’s not a thought experiment.
Take a basketball, that will represent the Earth.
Take a smaller ball, say a baseball, and paint a face on it.
Try to move the baseball around the basketball, keeping the face towards the basketball, and without adjusting your grip on the baseball.
How many revolutions can you achieve?”
If I hold the smaller ball in my hand and walk around the basketball I can keep the face on the smaller ball always pointing to the basketball. I have a grip on the smaller ball, so the face on the smaller ball cannot rotate in my hand.
Does that not defeat your argument? The small ball cannot rotate on its axis since I am holding it, yet I can walk around the basketball keeping the face toward the basketball and replicating the motion of the Moon in its orbit.
If I put the basketball on a table, I can move the smaller ball 3/4 of the way around the basketball but I must keep applying a twist to the smaller ball to keep it facing the basketball. I am still gripping the smaller ball so it cannot rotate on its axis. The twisting motion I applied is the same effect gravity has on the linear momentum of the Moon. It forces it into a curvilinear path where all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles.
No local rotation.
They keep making the same mistake, over and over, again. They believe Moon is rotating because they are looking at it from inertial (idiot) space. The correct way to determine axial rotation of an orbiting body (Moon) is to observe from the center of the orbit (Earth).
As viewed from Earth, Moon is not rotating about its axis, therefore, it is not rotating about its axis.
But then they try to change the definiton of “orbiting”. They are repelled by the simple example of orbiting by the NASA ISS Flight Director: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
ClintR wrote:
They keep making the same mistake, over and over, again. They believe Moon is rotating because they are looking at it from inertial (idiot) space. The correct way to determine axial rotation of an orbiting body (Moon) is to observe from the center of the orbit (Earth).
Those of us who have studied dynamics understand the necessity to use inertial coordinates because this is the only correct way to define angular momentum and thus rotation. The Earth-Moon vector produces a rotating coordinate system. One might select a Sun-Earth vector based system, which clearly explains the Moon’s illumination phases due to rotation, but even that vector based system rotates once a year.
The other mistake they keep making is that the axis the moon rotates around is an observed fact.
It’s an observation, not a theory.
There are two two treats in one, kinda like doublemint gum.
All their modeling attempts fail to take that into account.
That’s why I keep asking where they studied physics.
As it’s obvious they didn’t.
Swanson, are you still trying to fake it?
Your “Earth-Moon” vector indicates orbital motion. The fact that Moon always presents the same face to Earth indicates it is not rotating about its own axis.
We can put your “studied dynamics” in the same trash can as your “built satellites”.
ClintR makes grand claims for a guy that has refused to provide us with any evidence of his educational/work experience when asked, yet he expects me to provide detailed information about work I did almost 50 years ago. ClintR the TROLL continues to be nothing more than a pest, ignoring all evidence from NASA and physics based textbooks.
E. Swanson says:
June 8, 2020 at 11:30 AM
ClintR makes grand claims for a guy that has refused to provide us with any evidence of his educational/work experience when asked, yet he expects me to provide detailed information about work I did almost 50 years ago. ClintR the TROLL continues to be nothing more than a pest, ignoring all evidence from NASA and physics based textbooks.
===================================
Declarations in textbooks is no more evidence than the declaration the world is 6,000 years old in the Bible.
Swanson, those are some “grand claims” from a guy that got caught claiming he had “built satellites” and “studied dynamics”.
That’s likely all you’ve got — “grand claims”.
Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller in the Flight Operations Directorate at NASA:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. That’s what the ISS does.”
Svante cannot see the contradiction, either.
His example of orbiting: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
His example of rotating about an axis: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
He got both examples correct, but it’s hard to combine the two motions, in words. He should have just used Earth for the combined example. Earth both orbits and rotates about its axis.
Bill Hunter,
There is no claim in the Bible that the world is 6000 years old. You would think a Philosophy degree would cover that ground.
ClintR wrote:
Hey, TROLL, if you really cared about TRUTH, you could ask the University for my transcript and you might find some record of my work on satellite dynamics from my former employer (if they would give it to you). You are just having fun throwing our another red herring to cover up the fact that you have no evidence to support your ridiculous claims about rotating satellites. I’m not going to spoon feed your childish delusions.
Come on TROLL, give us some record of YOUR background, that is, if you actually have relevant experience, which I doubt.
bobdroege says:
Bill Hunter,
There is no claim in the Bible that the world is 6000 years old. You would think a Philosophy degree would cover that ground.
=========================================
You are quite right! Its an extrapolation by Creation Scientists from information given in the Bible. How about that? The analogy still holds.
Swanson, I was amazed to see you use the word “truth”, because you seem very afraid of it.
You claimed that you “built satellites”. I asked which ones you had built. You couldn’t answer.
You brought it up, but you folded your bluff.
And all of your other claims, false accusations, innuendos, and insults just reveal how devoid of facts you really are.
What’s amazing is the fanatic devotion your type has to perverting reality. It truly is very cult-like.
Gordon 9:31 pm: “Does that not defeat your argument?”
It does not. Because if Gordon holds the smaller ball in Gordon’s hand and walks around the basketball once a minute, then Gordon can keep the face on the smaller ball always pointing to the basketball by rotating on Gordon’s own axis once a minute. Gordon makes sure of that by having a grip on the smaller ball, so the face on the smaller ball also rotates along with Gordon once a minute.
This is called by DREMT: “both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”. It is also agreed to by ClintR quoting the NASA guy, bob, and Madhavi text Fig. 2(b).
Consistent with ClintR 12:30pm: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.” about your friend AND “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
Troll, begone.
svante…”If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. Thats what the ISS does.”
It requires muscular force to cause rotation about one’s COG as one circles another. Unless that ISS has retros to cause such a torque, it won’t rotate about its COG either.
Gordo squeaked:
The ISS designers employed Control Moment Gyros for it’s primary Attitude Control System. Since the torques on the ISS nearly average out as it transits it’s orbit, the CMG’s can provide the necessary counter torques to compensate and maintain the desired orientation. But, over time, the control thrusters (NOT “retros”) may be used to compensate for any trends, as noted in the second link above. Also noted in the second link, the ISS may not necessarily be required to “face the Earth” in some operational situations. Satellites used exclusively for Earth observing are operated to maintain a constant rate of rotation to ensure that the instruments are pointed at their “target”, i.e., the Earth.
CGM, pretty cool application of conservation angular momentum…
“Since the torques on the ISS nearly average out as it transits it’s orbit…”
…without axial rotation, by definition…
“by definition” so sayeth the CULT.
#2
“Since the torques on the ISS nearly average out as it transits it’s orbit…”
…without axial rotation, by definition…
At least God is described as omniscient and perhaps he may be. However, the authors of textbooks clearly aren’t.
Check this bill:
https://youtu.be/4aF7zwhlDDU?t=30
God gave us a big brain, I guess she wanted us to use it.
As we have been since the Age of Enlightenment.
As eg Franklin did when he upended ‘Gods Will’ with science behind lightning, and the resulting Lightning Rod.
Nate says:
God gave us a big brain, I guess she wanted us to use it.
==========================
wrong.
God gave some of us a big brain and others a big head.
Everybody happy with this definition of revolution?
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“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.”
That’s a perfectly legitimate definition of revolving, DREMT.
For additional clarity it should include that in pure orbital motion (revolving), only one side will face the center of the orbit. A ball on the end of a string is a good example. Moon is another good example.
What’s interesting is that the spinners cannot come up with defintions that work. We’re the ones always trying to teach the correct definitons.
Nope, you are the ones lying about definitions, misquoting NASA scientists and the like.
You are only qualified to teach the source of bullshit.
I’m glad you mentioned NASA, bob. Here are the easy-to-understand examples from the NASA ISS Flight Director:
His example of orbiting, or revolving: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
His example of rotating about an axis: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
Finish the quote, here I’ll do it for you
“If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. Thats what the ISS does.”
I think it is time to just laugh at blob.
His two examples are correct, bob. Learn each separately before you try to put them together.
Otherwise, you’ll just look like an idiot.
“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.”
That’s correct but some commenters here botch that definition and incorrectly write the outer object is still rotating about the axis of rotation when they were just taught that is revolving around the axis of rotation.
Troll, begone.
Half a quote
Half a quote
Half a quote onward
Into the valley of death rode the 4 deniers
Ours is not to reason why
Ours is to just lie lie lie
Logic to the left of them
Logic to the right of them
Logic in front of them
Volleyed and thundered
Stormed at with facts and math
Trying to argue they took a bath
Charging the Science
While all the world wondered
Yes, blob. You guys are indeed fixated on one half of the quote.
Me, I look at the whole thing. I think it is interesting he contradicts himself. It shows that even at that level, people get confused over the motions.
That’s a good definition of orbiting.
If you use the same source for a definition of rotation, it’s all good.
“Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons, asteroids, and pulsars”
“That’s a good definition of orbiting“
Like a ball on a string…do you really not see the problem, for the Spinners!?
Two definitions for two different things, that seems to be a problem for you guys.
The ball on a string is a good model for synchronous rotation as well.
Cause it rotates once for every revolution.
How can it be a model for purely orbital motion and a model for motion involving orbiting plus axial rotation!?
That was a rhetorical question.
You are thick.
Because, DREMT, of your own explanation: “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.”
Troll, begone.
Well since there is no such thing as purely orbital motion, it means it’s a good model axial rotation and orbital motion.
“Well since there is no such thing as purely orbital motion…”
☺️
BINGO!
Finally bob admits it. They don’t believe orbital motion is possible without axial rotation!
Finally! Now if we can just get them all to agree with bob?
Can you guys show me an example other than the man-made Hubble telescope that uses motors to remain non-rotating?
One of you already said you didn’t know of such a thing.
Of pure orbital motion that is.
Something that revolves around something else but doesn’t turn?
So, blob…your definition of “revolving” is an object moving like the Hubble telescope. Do you have a source to back up this definition?
You see, the definition of “revolving” I provided is an object moving like a ball on a string.
bob wants to know of something that orbits, but does not rotate about its axis?
Moon!
But ball on string is not pure revolving because as DREMT explained earlier that’s called: “both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”.
Yes DREMPTY, try Robert Frost from NASA.
Nope ClintR,
As I have proved upthread the Moon both rotates and orbits.
NEXT
No, blob, Robert Frost defined “revolving” as:
“If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving”
If you walk in a circle around somebody, you move as per the ball on a string, not as per the Hubble Telescope. Do you have another source?
No bob. What you “proved” is that you don’t understand the motions being discussed, and you’re unable to learn.
Moon only orbits. It does not rotate about its axis. A rational person could imagine stopping Moon. It the orbital motion were instaneously stopped, there would be no axial rotation from inertial (idiot) space. That’s because Moon is only orbiting–only one motion.
If Earth were instaneously stopped in orbit, its axial rotation would continue. Earth has two motions. Moon only has one.
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
#2
Troll, begone.
All you have to do is refer him to his own examples, Ball4.
Correct ClintR, and you are correct when quoting the NASA guy verbatim.
The spinners have nothing. They have a view from space that is consistent with both theories, totally non-decisive. They have an unsupported declaration by astronomy and have been unable to locate any supporting evidence other than the ambiguous view from space. And they want to totally ignore the logic that says if the moon is spinning on its own axis the earth would have to orbit the moon for the one face to stay pointed at earth. (i.e. the earth would have to follow the face around the moon’s axis).
The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually rotates on the orbital axis.
All of the evidence of thousands of post falls entirely on the non-spinner position with zero inconsistencies and zero logical errors.
Spinners you lose its not even close. Its a shutout.
bill 12:18am continues to botch the definition of revolve. The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually revolves on the orbital axis and rotates on its own internal axis:
“The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
#3
Troll, begone.
“The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually rotates on the orbital axis.
All of the evidence”….
except all the contradictory evidence, as found in AXIAL TILT, LIBRATIONS, POLAR COORDINATES, AXIAL PRECESSSION, that needs to be IGNORED,
….”of thousands of post falls entirely on the non-spinner position with zero inconsistencies and zero logical errors.
Spinners you lose its not even close. Its a shutout.”
The river Denial runs deep with this crowd.
Nate says:
The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually rotates on the orbital axis.
All of the evidence
including all the additional conforming evidence, as found in AXIAL TILT, LIBRATIONS, POLAR COORDINATES, AXIAL PRECESSSION, that needs to be CONSIDERED found to be a direct result of the tidal friction forces that tidal locked the moon to an orbital orientation to the earth.
Spinners have futilely searched for contrary evidence and incorrectly implicated such things as axial tilt, librations, axial precession, and suggested these concepts are inconsistent with orbital forces and have argued with zero evidence and faulty logic that all these effects are uniquely unforced and are evidence of a spin created by antique long gone forces.
However, science has clearly established that while antique forces long ago may have caused the moon to spin the orbital forces of gravity have long ago conformed the moon to a locked orbital perspective arising out of lunar imperfections and gravitational forces inflicting frictional stoppage of all independent spin. Additionally it has been hypothesized that the axial tilt is a result of the same orbital forces.
Finally, librations are a consequence of eliptical orbits and but for independent spin constantly changing the view for planets and moons making it very difficult to observe still exists for both spinning and non-spinning orbital objects.
One might argue that some residual spin was left but the tidal locked nature of such would necessitate that the earth orbit the moon as the moon is under the command of earth’s gravity entirely.
Spinners you lose its not even close. Its a shutout.
The river Denial runs deep with this crowd.
The spinners believe science proves the moon is rotating on its own axis purely because astronomy (in conflict with engineering science) arbitrarily defined it as such. However, engineering science provides the correct answer and it is demonstrated by natural forcings on objects bound together by gravitational forces. Engineering science clearly shows that the lunar axis is NOT an axis of rotation.
the above probably has a number of typos as it saved itself when my hand wasn’t even on the keyboard.
To finish up the proof of the concept laid out above is in the actual building of a working model of the earth and moon bound together by frictional forces in a way that forces a single perspective of and orbiting moon. The alternative model that puts the axis of the moon on the moon COG will necessitate the orbiting of the earth around the moon.
So you have the hypothesis, you have an experiment now guys do some science and cut the inculcated obfuscating
Since there aren’t any frictional forces acting on the Moon, your model idea is a non starter.
As engineers are wont to say
Back to the drawing board
“the actual building of a working model of the earth and moon”
This was accomplished in antiquity ~200BC, bill. Look up the Antikythera mechanism which shows the Moon both rotates on its own internal axis and revolves about the Earth (external axis) in about 27 days which was known to Hipparchus but not to bill and the entire DREMT.
bobdroege says:
Ball4 says:
Quit your whining! I gave you an experiment to conduct. Have you forgotten how to be a scientist?
bill, the hypothesis & actual building of a working model of the earth and moon bound together by frictional forces in a way that forces a single perspective of an orbiting moon proves the Moon both rotates on its own internal axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.
Your hypothesis and experiment was accomplished by ~200BC.
ClintR says
“No bob. What you “proved” is that you don’t understand the motions being discussed, and you’re unable to learn.”
Well I am mutherfucking tired of these mutherfucking liars and their mutherfucking ad homs.
that’s it CLitR,
You didn’t refute my proof.
“…my proof…”
☺️
I haven’t seen a refutation from you either DREMPTY
Care to take a crack at it?
There is nothing to refute.
Ball4 says:
June 9, 2020 at 12:41 PM
bill, the hypothesis & actual building of a working model of the earth and moon bound together by frictional forces in a way that forces a single perspective of an orbiting moon proves the Moon both rotates on its own internal axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.
Your hypothesis and experiment was accomplished by ~200BC.
========================================
Oh good now we are invoking a flat earth model to prove the moon rotates on its axis!!
I think you may have actually discovered the origins of the idea. Hmmm it took multiple gears to mimic lunar libration until Cassini discovered the moons elliptical orbit some 700 years later. You guys are truly a barrel full of monkeys.
Ball4 you shouldn’t be bitchin at all about building a model you are the one claiming rigid dynamics is on the same page as astronomy
Bill,
“Nate says:
The obvious and only logical answer is the moon actually rotates on the orbital axis.
All of the evidence
including all the additional conforming evidence, as found in AXIAL TILT, LIBRATIONS, POLAR COORDINATES, AXIAL PRECESSSION, that needs to be CONSIDERED found to be a direct result of the tidal friction forces that tidal locked the moon to an orbital orientation to the earth.”
Of course Bill altered and edited my words, as he has done before, to make me say things I didnt say.
Because when you just can’t win on the facts, and you are a very very poor loser like Bill, you have to lie and cheat to make yourself feel better about your inadequacies. To ‘win’, by whatever means, and whatever that means.
All in all quite a sad spectacle.
“The spinners believe science proves the moon is rotating on its own axis purely because astronomy (in conflict with engineering science) arbitrarily defined it as such. However, engineering science ”
How sad is it that Bill needs to invent a rift between Engineers and Astronomers and Physicists that doesnt exist!
No surprise, most of Bill’s notions are completely made up.
Surely Bill can find a history of space exploration that reveals this great rift.
Hilarious.
Engineers understand this in precisely the same way as astronomers and physicists.
Engineers on Apollo and many planetary missions since, stuck the landings and rendezvous, BECAUSE THEY AGREE with astronomers, and NEEDED to calculate how much the Moon had rotated during the various points in the missions.
DREMPTY now accepts my proof that the Moon rotates
“There is nothing to refute.”
Is what he responded to my challenge to refute my proof that the Moon rotates.
You are a spinner now and for ever more.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Nate says:
”Of course Bill altered and edited my words, as he has done before, to make me say things I didnt say.
Because when you just cant win on the facts, and you are a very very poor loser like Bill, you have to lie and cheat to make yourself feel better about your inadequacies. To win, by whatever means, and whatever that means.
All in all quite a sad spectacle.”
====================================
Nope didn’t quote you Nate. I use either quotation marks or a line of equals or both like above to denote quotations. The Nate says: was just left there as an oversight.
If you don’t see actual quotation marks or the double line since regular quotation marks don’t work properly on this blog, its an original composition on my part. If you are actually complaining I might have plagiarized some of your text thats fine too I will own up to it. But the purpose of it was to establish a different interpretation consistent with logic since your claims about axial tilt isn’t consistent with NASA thinking on the matter.
What you actually should do is provide a proof of any moon characteristic contrary to the single axis theory argued here rather than just taking far fetched pot shots without any evidence whatsoever to support your viewpoint.
“DREMPTY now accepts my proof that the Moon rotates”
You have no proof. All you did was demonstrate you don’t understand the Non-Spinner position. So there is nothing to refute.
DREMTY,
“You have no proof.”
Yes I do, an observation that the Moon turns, or spins, or rotates.
“All you did was demonstrate you dont understand the Non-Spinner position. So there is nothing to refute.”
This is just another ad-hom.
Of course I understand your position, it’s that you would see all sides of the Moon if it were spinning in synchronous rotation.
But that is of course wrong, as satellites that spin in synchronous rotation always keep one side toward the object they revolve around.
bobdroege says:
But that is of course wrong, as satellites that spin in synchronous rotation always keep one side toward the object they revolve around.
==========================================
Spinning and keeping one side pointed in the same direction????????
Maybe a little contradictory for all but objects revolving around the satellite.
blob, its not an ad hom to point out that you don’t understand something when you continually demonstrate that you don’t understand. It’s not my fault that you don’t get it. Nobody can say that I haven’t tried to explain.
Here you go, crackpot theory #4
https://science.howstuffworks.com/10-crackpot-theories-space7.htm
“It’s one of those shower-thought moments that strikes novice astronomers from time to time — when you look up at the moon, it always looks the same. Why doesn’t the moon spin?
Actually, the moon does rotate but it takes nearly an Earth month to do so. As it spins, it’s also circling the Earth, and as it does, the same side of the moon faces our planet. This is called synchronous rotation and it ensures that the man in the moon always has a good view of us.”
Non-spinners = crackpots
"Non-spinners = crackpots"
Now that’s an ad-hom.
DREMPTY,
Still out to lunch I see.
This is not an ad-hom
“Non-spinners = crackpots”
It’s just an insult, and a true one at that.
This is an ad-hom
You are wrong because you are a crackpot!
The “you are wrong…” part is implied. Unless you are arguing that crackpots are generally known to be correct about things.
“What you actually should do is provide a proof of any moon characteristic contrary to the single axis theory argued here rather than just taking far fetched pot shots without any evidence whatsoever to support your viewpoint.”
Indeed I think I ahve done just that many times in this discussion. Feel free to look back at them, especially those times where I asked you to critique them line by line, telling me where you depart. But you never did. Until you are willing to do that, it is not a useful debate.
And thank you for owning up to the error that made it look like you were trying to falsely quote me.
Nate says:
Indeed I think I ahve done just that many times in this discussion. Feel free to look back at them, especially those times where I asked you to critique them line by line, telling me where you depart. But you never did. Until you are willing to do that, it is not a useful debate.
And thank you for owning up to the error that made it look like you were trying to falsely quote me.
==========================================
Trouble is Nate is everything you bring up either is indifferent to rotation of the moon (like the tilt of an orbit affected by forces other than gravity. Or axial tilt that is shaped by the same forces that tidal lock and object). With the moon the only thing that does matter is the center of the orbit and whether its going through the earth or is it going through the moon.
There are three axes in an orbital system where none of the objects is tidal locked. 2 axes where one one of the two objects is tidal locked, and 1 axis when both objects are tidallocked. this seems to be the nature of gravity gradually eating up independent motion.
when rotational axis in an orbital system where at least one of bodies is tidal locked to the other. There are two axes when no tidal locking is present.
Ignore last paragraph of the above that was a partially edited version that got moved out of view and accidentally saved with the final text.
thats a very good definition DREMT.
consistent with rigid body dynamics and the other sciences.
Well, it’s been a fascinating 2-3 weeks. DREMT’s “chalk circle” was the first clue. The spinners could not admit the chalk circle was revolving with the MGR, not rotating about its axis.
That originated the “idiot test”. Where we were able to identify the idiots:
Ball4
bdgwx
Bindidon
bobdroege
E. Swanson
Nate
Norman
Svante
Tim Folkerts
Then, we ended up yesterday with bobdroege admitting that they believe pure orbital motion includes rotating about a CoG axis. Of course they have to, in order to erroneously believe Moon is rotating about its axis. Idiots are not likley to change their beliefs.
Outside of the blog, out in the real world, the existence of idiots explains a lot of what is happening. How many politicians are idiots?
Unfortunately duty calls, and I must be traveling for the next few weeks. I will miss the free entertainment. Keep up all the good work “Non-Spinners” and “Non-Idiots”!
You and your moronic posts and insults won’t be missed…
He’s right – and that upsets you, Swanso.
Yes Swanson is right except when ClintR verbatim quotes the NASA guy, and we know that upsets the entire DREMT.
Troll, begone.
Q.E.D.
Troll, begone.
‘Troll begone’
Clint IS going, thankfully. No need to slam the door on him.
#2
Troll, begone.
ClintR
You are a fucking liar, I never said pure orbital motion included rotating about a center of gravity.
This is what I actually said
“Well since there is no such thing as purely orbital motion, it means it’s a good model axial rotation and orbital motion.”
It’s no use arguing with fucking liars.
I guess I’d rather be an idiot than a fucking liar.
bobdroege
” I guess I’d rather be an idiot than a fucking liar. ”
Yes. Or, as I wrote some time ago:
” It’s better to be an “idiot” than a “non”idiot. ”
*
I’ll come back soon. It takes a lot of time to read and understand what people like Habibullin, Rizvanov/Rakhimov, Kozieł, Calamé and others wrote.
Work done recently by Arbab & al. concerning spin-rotation coupling comparisons between microscopic and macroscopic contexts is of great interest as well.
*
My critique to you, Ball4, Norman and others: why do you still not manage to move back from this stoopid toy blind-alley (mgr, coins, cannonballs, racehorses, …) ?
You will never convince anybody, and give all these “non”idiots permanently fresh fuel to continue their nonsense.
Regards
J.-P. D.
Imagine if the Non-Spinners got as upset as blob does over misrepresentation. All I say to Ball4 is “troll, begone”, and he has been deliberately twisting and misrepresenting everything any Non-Spinner has said for the last two thousand comments.
I am not upset, who is this blob guy anyway
“My critique to you, Ball4…”
Bindidon, here’s the story. Adapted from Kurt Vonnegut. It is about some blog commenters named the DREMTs who were kidnapped from Earth by extraterrestrials long ago. The entire lot of DREMTlings were put on display in a zoo on an exoplanet called Zircon-212.
This group of people in the zoo cage had a big display board supposedly showing blog comments along one wall of their habitat, and a computer that was supposedly connected to the internet on Earth. The creatures on Zircon-212 told their captives that the creatures had supreme atm. thermodynamics and astronomy knowledge, that this knowledge needed to be communicated to the blog readers back on earth, and that it was up to the captives to manage it so they would be fabulously famous when they were returned to Earth.
The computer connection and the big board were all fakes, of course. They were simply stimulants to make the DREMTlings from Earth perform vividly for the crowds allowed to post comments on the display board at the zoo – to make DREMTlings jump up and down and cheer, or gloat, or sulk, or tear their hair, to be scared witless, or to feel as contented as babies in their mothers arms.
The DREMTlings did very well commenting. That was part of the rigging, of course. And religion got mixed up in it too. They were told the President of the United States had declared National Prayer week and that everyone should pray.
The DREMTlings had had a bad couple of weeks commenting. They had lost a series of debates very badly, and were being ignored. So, the DREMTlings gave praying a whirl. It worked. Blog comments went up.
Obsessed.
Ball4 has become so confused he is hallucinating about UFOs
We got to witness a total meltdown of idiot bobdroege. His meltdown was an example of what I mentioned some days ago about “blog terrorism”. But, first let’s review his false accusations, for those terribly bored….
1) bob started off with the statement “Well since there is no such thing as purely orbital motion…”
2) bob was continuing his efforts to pervert the definitions. So I responded with:
“BINGO! Finally bob admits it. They don’t believe orbital motion is possible without axial rotation!”
3) bob apparently did not understand that he had been caught until I stated later: “Then, we ended up yesterday with bobdroege admitting that they believe pure orbital motion includes rotating about a CoG axis. Of course they have to, in order to erroneously believe Moon is rotating about its axis. Idiots are not likely to change their beliefs.”
4) Once he realized he had been caught, he exploded in the juvenile profanities above.
So I didn’t lie. I just exposed bob’s attempt to pervert the definition of orbital motion.
They are not interested in reality, or truth. They have their religious agenda, and nothing else matters. That’s why they support each other in deceptions. It’s exactly the same mentality as religious terrorists and street rioters–frustrated losers, flinging profanities, bricks, or bombs.
It makes for great entertainment. I will miss it over the next few days.
1) is correct, everything else is wrong
No example of pure orbital motion has been brought forward by the non-spinning team.
3) this is a lie on at least two levels
a) I never admitted anything about any characteristics of pure orbital motion, as it has never been observed,
b) I have stated that rotation does not require the axis through the center of gravity, so this is another lie.
So yes you have indeed been caught out as a lying asshole.
Wrong, blob. Your definition of “pure orbital motion” is motion as per the Hubble Telescope. Our version of “pure orbital motion” is a ball on a string, or someone walking in a circle around you. The thing is, we have sources to back up our definition, you don’t.
DREMT’s version of “pure orbital motion” is someone walking in a circle around you described by DREMT as “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis” and ClintR’s source NASA guy Robert Frost in 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.” Just like a ball on a string.
So there really is no difference between bob and DREMT, someday bill may also listen to DREMT/ClintR and learn similarly about rigid body dynamics.
Ball4 deliberately twists my words, again. No, pure orbital motion is not “both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”, obviously! Someone walking in a circle around you is just orbiting you. They are not also rotating on their own axis.
No twisting by me, simply verbatim DREMT quotes:
DREMT 7:38am: “Someone walking in a circle around you is just orbiting you. They are not also rotating on their own axis.”
bob asks: “you walk around your friend once a minute while simultaneously turning around once a minute?”
DREMT replies 6:24pm: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”
It is DREMT twisting his own words around because DREMT makes up his own physics from time to time thus can’t keep his stories straight. The internet straightens DREMT out by always remembering. Nothing new, just like DREMT does with climate physics.
DREMT replies 6:24pm: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis, and your friend sees every side of you from the center of the orbit”.
DREMT 8:01am agrees with bob again: “Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”. Good job. But I predict DREMT will mess up again, soon.
Troll, begone.
Ball4 continues to hallucinate. Just not about UFOs this time.
DREMPT
“The thing is, we have sources to back up our definition, you don’t.”
Care to provide such a cite?
Google pure orbital motion and see what you get.
Already have.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-483387
Nope that doesn’t cut it.
That definition is only for revolve, or orbit, and doesn’t take into account the very question we are discussing, namely whether or not something that is orbiting is also spinning.
Try again Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
The Moon orbits around one axis and rotates around another, been know for hundreds of years.
Since there are two axes observed, the Moon both rotates and orbits.
Of course it “cuts it”. Why on Earth would any definition you can find not be for “pure revolution”!? Why would someone define “revolution” and include any other motion as part of that definition!? “Revolution” = “pure revolution”. Otherwise, it’s like saying you would define “water” and then include some other chemical along with “water” in the definition!
Google “revolve astronomy” and see if you can find any definition that states the motion is like the Hubble Telescope.
Well then it’s a non-sequitur because it doesn’t apply to the question under discussion because it doesn’t address rotation.
Going back to Robert Frost who defined revolving as walking around your friend, which is like the Hubble Space Telescope, you can walk around your friend doing multiple pirouettes, or keeping one side of you towards your friend, or keeping your face pointed in one direction.
So I googled revolve definition astronomy
try here
https://sciencing.com/difference-between-rotate-revolve-8534549.html
“You may have noticed that the same side of the moon always faces the Earth. You might assume that, while the moon plainly revolves around the Earth, it must not be rotating at all.
In fact, this is not the case. Instead, the moon has a period of rotation that exactly matches that of its period of revolution about Earth close to 28 days. As a result, its spinning keeps tempo with its circular path in space, and Earthlings therefore see only one half of their only natural satellite.
Extra study: What would the moon look like from Earth if it did not rotate at all? The best way to arrive at the answer is to move a labeled circle around another at a distance while keeping its labels facing the same direction. How would this affect the view from the same spot on Earth on successive days, when the moon has moved about 1/28 of its orbit around the Earth?”
Funny, every time I google something on this topic I find sources that support the spinner position.
So you couldn’t find any definition of "revolve" that states the motion is like the Hubble Telescope.
If you can’t back up your definition, I guess we have to go with ours, which settles the issue in the Non-Spinners favor.
"Going back to Robert Frost who defined revolving as walking around your friend, which is like the Hubble Space Telescope"
No, walking around your friend naturally would resemble motion like a ball on a string, with the same side of you always facing them as you walk around. Walking around your friend in a manner like the Hubble Space Telescope orbits would be a very unnatural way to walk.
DREMT, you can walk around your friend once in a minute while rotating on your own axis 0 times, once, two times, three times so forth. One of those number rotations on your own axis results in your friend sees only one side of you from the center of the orbit.
Run the test, figure it out experimentally. I already know DREMT won’t do so but any informed reader can do so proving DREMT occasionally gets right answer and mostly gets wrong answer showing DREMT has no accomplishment in this field.
Listen to the ClintR NASA guy source and DREMT could start to understand but DREMT won’t, preferring instead to entertain the zoo crowd.
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit.
Revolution = motion like a ball on a string, where the same side faces the center throughout the orbit.
Well here then
https://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=20580
An orbit is just the path and has nothing to do with the speed of rotation.
How about defining revolve like a yo-yo on a string where the speed that the yo-yo rotates has nothing to do with the orbit.
It could be spinning or it could not be spinning.
blob, there are two separate and independent notions to define, revolution and axial rotation. You need to establish what revolution actually is. Saying “it is just a path” is not defining revolution. The orientation of the object whilst revolving is obviously crucial to the definition, and the entire debate.
Very good DREMT 11:45am. Run the experiment, vary the rotation rate on your own axis while walking around your friend once a minute, find out at what rate your friend only sees the same side of you.
bob has already solved this for you, but do it on your own; ClintR’s NASA guy is a useful source too.
Ball4:
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit.
Revolution = motion like a ball on a string, where the same side faces the center throughout the orbit.
Those two definitions are not equal.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-483387
Bob you need to drop the semantical arguments. Semantics is about symbolism not reality. Anybody can semantically argue for little green men in caves living under the surface of Mars by defining little green men as the things under the surface of Mars.
I realize you are doing this because you can’t come up with a physical argument. So just concede the point rather than obfuscate the point with definitions.
So DREMPTY,
You can define revolve, but that’s not the question, take a crack at defining rotation.
Bill Hunter,
Call it semantics all you want, but if you argue that the Moon is not rotating you are a crackpot.
You don’t want to be a crackpot do you?
If something has a measured rotation period, it rotates, period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Sidereal rotation period
27.321661 d (synchronous)
That’s how long it takes the Moon to rotate around its axis once.
blob…obviously the definition of axial rotation depends on your definition of revolution. How can you still not have grasped that!?
11:56am: “Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit.”
That’s correct DREMT. You get that right; you start walking facing N & always face N during your revolution around your friend. It is pure revolution since as DREMT writes zero axial rotations per orbit. You walk around your friend carefully always facing N. This is pure revolution about the external axis centered on your friend as you write i.e. “one revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit”.
Way to go, passed the 1st exam just as written by DREMT.
Now DREMT remains in place and rotates 360 facing N,W,S,E back to N on DREMT’s own internal axis in place at your friend’s 3:00 position. That is pure rotation on DREMT’s own axis, zero revolution about your friend’s external axis.
Got all that? If so, DREMT just made progress. But I doubt DREMT meant what he wrote again. Just from observing the way DREMT comments.
Drempty,
No it doesn’t, they are two independent things.
I would have thought you could have grasped that by now.
What a crackpot.
Troll, begone.
Yes, blob. Two separate and independent motions. So unless you are clear on how you have defined revolution, you cannot know how to keep axial rotation as separate and independent from it.
The Earth revolves and rotates on its own axis.
The moon just revolves.
…according to the definition of revolve that I linked to.
DREMT’s link: “Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons…”
DREMPTY,
According to the link you linked to:
The strict definition of rotation is “the circular movement of an object about a point in space.” This is used in geometry as well as astronomy and physics. To help visualize it, imagine a point on a piece of paper. Rotate the piece of paper while it’s lying flat on the table. What’s happening is that essentially every point is rotating around the place on the paper where the point is drawn. Now, imagine a point in the middle of a spinning ball. All the other points in the ball rotate around the point. Draw a line through the center of the ball where the point lies, and that’s its axis.
and more
“For the kinds of objects discussed in astronomy, rotation is used to describe an object rotating about an axis. Think of a merry-go-round. It rotates around the center pole, which is the axis. Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons, asteroids, and pulsars. When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin, like that top mentioned above, on the point of the axis. ”
During a full moon a point on the bright face of the moon points towards the Sun, at a new moon, that same point points away from the Sun, because it has turned around the line through the center of the moon.
So according to the definition you have cited, the Moon rotates.
“During a full moon a point on the bright face of the moon points towards the Sun, at a new moon, that same point points away from the Sun, because it has turned around the line through the center of the moon.”
No, it is because the moon has revolved.
Remember, you have to be able to distinguish between what is happening due to revolution, and what is happening due to axial rotation. With the moon, nothing is happening due to axial rotation, because it is only revolving…not rotating on its own axis.
bobdroege says:
If something has a measured rotation period, it rotates, period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Sidereal rotation period
27.321661 d (synchronous)
That’s how long it takes the Moon to rotate around its axis once.
=================================
You still don’t get the non-spinner position. The moon rotates around its axis, the axis being exterior to the moon and piercing the earth’s COG as detailed in Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b). thats the only axis related to the moons orbital rotation.
DREMT: “During a full moon a point on the bright face of the moon points towards the Sun, at a new moon, that same point points away from the Sun, because it has turned around the line through the center of the moon.”
DREMT link: “When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”.
Thus the moon is said to spin around the line through the center of the moon. And moon orbits the earth so just like DREMT wrote earlier agreeing with bob:
“Then you are both orbiting and rotating on your own axis”.
“the moons orbital rotation.”
Orbit AND rotation. bill, do try to catch up. DREMT/bob just presented you a link explaining the moon spins around the line through the center of the moon and orbits the Earth.
ClintR’s NASA guy explained for bill the time involved with both moon orbit & spin around the line through the center of the moon: both equal ~27days.
Bill Hunter
“You still don’t get the non-spinner position. The moon rotates around its axis, the axis being exterior to the moon and piercing the earth’s COG as detailed in Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b). thats the only axis related to the moons orbital rotation.”
But for the fact that Astronomers have identified two axes with respect to the Moon, one it revolves around and one it rotates around.
It both revolves and rotates.
Learn some Astronomy, it’s a science older than Philosophy.
bobdroege says:
Bill Hunter
“You still don’t get the non-spinner position. The moon rotates around its axis, the axis being exterior to the moon and piercing the earth’s COG as detailed in Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b). thats the only axis related to the moons orbital rotation.”
But for the fact that Astronomers have identified two axes with respect to the Moon, one it revolves around and one it rotates around.
It both revolves and rotates.
Learn some Astronomy, it’s a science older than Philosophy.
========================================
Perhaps so but the word rotate isn’t older than philosophy.
Seems you just have a brain obstruction that prevents you from even seeing what the non-spinner argument is thus it condemns you to an endless parade of strawmen to make your case by.
Bill Hunter,
The question is not whether I understand the non-spinner position or not, it’s whether the non-spinner position agrees with observations.
It does not.
You are the one always arguing the side points, never the main point, so who is doing the straw manning?
bobdroege says:
The question is not whether I understand the non-spinner position or not, it’s whether the non-spinner position agrees with observations.
It does not.
You are the one always arguing the side points, never the main point, so who is doing the straw manning?
==================================
Total BS. You declaring it doesn’t fit with observations is ridiculous. It looks just like a ball on a string.
bobd…”Learn some Astronomy, its a science older than Philosophy”.
You mean like back in the day when astronomers explained the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury as the planet following a loop in it’s orbit where it orbited in a small circle then carried on with its orbit? Or, how about when the head astronomer, The Pope, declared that the Sun was not the centre of the solar system, that it was Earth.
Even today, there are scientists who simply don’t get it that the mind plays tricks on the unwary. In Zen, it’s called the Cosmic Joke, the joke being that God played a trick on us by giving us a brain we think works fine in all circumstances but it doesn’t.
The notion that the Moon rotates about its axis exactly once per orbit is one of those tricks, a mental aberration. It’s like time. We humans defined the basis of time, the second, as a fraction of one rotation of the Earth. The second is based directly on the rotation of the Earth, yet even the likes of Einstein claimed that time can dilate. That means only one thing, that the Earth must change its rate of rotation.
Even the Ancient Egyptians based their sundial on the rotation of the Earth. Of course, they thought the Sun was actually moving across the sky and you wouldn’t want to tell a Pharoah that it wasn’t. Something like today, when even NASA thinks the Moon rotates on its axis.
Ball4 has now got to the point where he is putting other commenters words in my mouth. Ball4, sentence beginning “During a full moon a point on the bright face of the moon points towards the Sun…” was written by bobdroege, I was quoting him then correcting him.
Troll, begone.
“I was quoting him”
And bob was quoting DREMT’s material. DREMT abandons a source when bob points out DREMT source disagrees with the DREMT: “So according to the definition you (DREMT) have cited, the Moon rotates.” around the line through the center of the moon.
Yeah, I did just declare it doesn’t match observations, and you claim that’s total bullshit and say it just looks like a ball on a string.
Well a ball on a string doesn’t match observation because the axes a ball on a string rotate and revolve on are parallel.
The axes the Moon rotates and revolves on are not parallel.
I have posted evidence to support that fact.
So you will just have to check that out.
Don’t believe me, don’t believe your lying eyes, go do some research.
Or be a crackpot.
Quack Quack Quack Quack
Wrong again, Ball4. The sentence beginning “during a full moon a point on the bright face of the moon points towards the Sun…” is bob’s own words, not a quote from my source. Stop misrepresenting everybody.
bobdroege says:
Yeah, I did just declare it doesnt match observations, and you claim thats total bullshit and say it just looks like a ball on a string.
Well a ball on a string doesnt match observation because the axes a ball on a string rotate and revolve on are parallel.
The axes the Moon rotates and revolves on are not parallel.
I have posted evidence to support that fact.
So you will just have to check that out.
Dont believe me, dont believe your lying eyes, go do some research.
Or be a crackpot.
Quack Quack Quack Quack
======================================
As I explained here an orbital plane technically doesn’t have a ‘axis’ it has a ‘barycenter’ point.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-484826
“Well a ball on a string doesn’t match observation because the axes a ball on a string rotate and revolve on are parallel.“
A ball on a string has only one axis, at the center point of the orbit (i.e. the axis is external to the ball). It is literally given as an example of revolution. A ball on a string is not rotating on an axis passing through the cm of the ball.
Even Norman agrees with that. Sheesh.
the axis that is commonly associated with an orbital plane is the axis of the object orbiting on the orbital plane.
Pretty simple concept completely in compliance with Madhavi regarding stacked concentric circles forming an axis. An orbital plane is simply one circle, or ellipse. thus having no volume it has no axis.
Verbatim quoting comments is not misrepresenting anyone DREMT.
DREMT still has to abandon or try to correct his source material when bob points out the material disagrees with DREMT. DREMT link: “Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons…When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”.
bill 8:29am botches definition of rotation again, a rotational plane is simply one circle, or ellipse thus having volume; it has an axis through the object, see Madhavi Fig. 1 object on the right spinning like the moon.
Ball4, you misrepresent through omission of parts of the quote (quote-mining) and by assigning quotes to the wrong people.
And you know you do! You are completely shameless.
My source is fine. It is clear from context what is revolution, what is axial rotation, and how to separate the two. All you need to do is engage the brain. The point bob brought up re the points on the moon’s face can be explained by revolution alone.
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit = Motion like a ball on a string, where the same side faces the center throughout the orbit.
“My source is fine.”
DREMT, the full comment I quote verbatim is nearby, is searchable, your full link is available. You now revert to agreeing with your own material once bob pointed out you misrepresented it by not fully verbatim quoting it.
DREMT link is now “fine” (DREMT word): “Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons…When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-484357
Yes, Ball4…there are moons out there that do rotate on their own axes. Ours does not, it merely revolves. The axis of rotation does not pass through the cm of the moon. The moon revolves about the Earth/moon barycenter, only.
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit = Motion like a ball on a string, where the same side faces the center throughout the orbit.
Now I’ll combine the motions described in my last link 9:11am to show DREMT is wrong & that our moon does spin just like every other moon using DREMT words and “fine” words:
DREMT: “Motion like a ball on a string, where the same side faces the center throughout the orbit.”
DREMT “fine” source: “When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”.
The ball spins (rotates) around facing the center point on its own internal axis N,W,S,E and back to N again on the string in one revolution of the central external axis as in Madhavi Fig. 1 object on right thus “When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin” as the ball on string orbits the center, just like our moon.
A ball on a string has only one axis, at the center point of the orbit (i.e. the axis is external to the ball). It is literally given as an example of revolution. A ball on a string is not rotating on an axis passing through the cm of the ball.
Ball4 clearly defines “revolution” as follows:
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit = Motion as per the Hubble Telescope.
As he makes clear in his 5:02 PM comment.
DREMT, since you agree there are moons that do rotate on their own axis, name one.
DREMT here is one axis rotation repeating my 5:02pm:
Now DREMT remains in place and rotates 360 facing N,W,S,E back to N on DREMT’s own internal axis in place at your friend’s 3:00 position. That is pure rotation on DREMT’s own axis, zero revolution about your friend’s external axis.
—–
Here is one axis revolution where you and friend facing N all the while both have no axis of rotation:
11:56am: “Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit.”
That’s correct DREMT. You get that right; you start walking facing N & always face N during your revolution around your friend. It is pure revolution since as DREMT writes zero axial rotations per orbit. You walk around your friend carefully always facing N. This is pure revolution about the external axis centered on your friend as you write i.e. “one revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit”.
—–
Here is one axis rotation AND one axis revolution combined 9:29am:
The ball spins (rotates) around facing the center point on its own internal axis N,W,S,E and back to N again on the string in one revolution of the central external axis as in Madhavi Fig. 1 object on right thus “When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin” as the ball on string orbits the center, just like our moon.
Ball4 again makes crystal clear at 9:59AM that:
Ball4 clearly defines “revolution” as follows:
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit = Motion as per the Hubble Telescope.
Whereas Non-Spinners define “revolution” as follows:
Revolution = Pure Revolution = Revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit = Motion as per a ball on a string.
Does Ball4 now finally understand the Non-Spinner position?
Ball4 has always understood the Non-Spinner (DREMT term) position to be wrong about the moon.
The ball spinning once per orbit and revolving on string exhibits rotation about its own internal axis and revolution about the center axis, same as the moon. As I just detailed for DREMT & the Madhavi text makes clear (except to the DREMTs). Do the experiment.
The Hubble can be forced to do both, or either depending on the observational/servicing needs. So which moon IS rotating on its own axis DREMT?
Well, Ball4, the definition of revolve that I linked to certainly supports the Non-Spinners.
Try Phoebe, one of Saturn’s moons, for a moon that does rotate on its own axis.
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin” disagrees with the non-spinners (DREMT term) no matter DREMT claims to the contrary.
Yes, Phoebe’s axis of rotation passes through Phoebe so Phoebe is said to spin, just like Earth’s moon.
The axis of rotation does not pass through the moon, the axis of rotation is at the Earth-moon barycenter, which the moon revolves around.
“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.”
DREMT 12:40pm, like bill, botches the definition of rotation.
Actually DREMT’s source means:
Earth’s moon axis of revolution is at the Earth-moon barycenter, which the moon revolves around.
Earth’s moon axis of rotation passes through the moon so the moon is said to spin.
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”
The non-spinners (DREMT term) botching the definitions of rotation and revolution in the article (and elsewhere) means non-spinners (DREMT term) are wrong. Study the details I laid out for DREMT & do the experiment.
“Actually DREMT’s source means”
Now Ball4 simply rewrites the source itself to say what he wants.
I think I am finished talking to you.
Ball4-troll, begone.
Ball4 says:
June 11, 2020 at 8:46 AM
bill 8:29am botches definition of rotation again, a rotational plane is simply one circle, or ellipse thus having volume; it has an axis through the object, see Madhavi Fig. 1 object on the right spinning like the moon.
==================================
That might actually work for folks with one track minds. But Madhavi actually provides two independent examples of rotation. One is in fig. 1 and the second is in fig. 2. In both figures he compares the figure on the right as a rotation and the figure(s) to the left as not being rotations.
Source:
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”
Ball4:
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”
No rewrite. What I rewrote was to correct DREMT’s botched use of the word “rotation” & use the correct word (per the source) “revolution”.
#2
Troll, begone.
bill 1:00pm, looks like you finally understand Madhavi. Now to try your new found understanding to explain to DREMT Fig. 2 “the figure on the right as a rotation and the figure(s) to the left as not being rotations.”
In Fig. 2 both plates are revolving according to DREMT’s source.
Ball4 says:
bill 1:00pm, looks like you finally understand Madhavi. Now to try your new found understanding to explain to DREMT Fig. 2 the figure on the right as a rotation and the figure(s) to the left as not being rotations.
In Fig. 2 both plates are revolving according to DREMTs source.
====================================
Sorry you are wrong Ball4. You accused DREMT of describing a 2a motion in the first post on the matter when you said: ”The cannon ball is only curvilinear translating in earthen orbit when it is per DREMT words: ”launched forwards from the cannon without spin.”which is Fig. 2(a) in DREMTs rigid body dynamics link.”
DREMT immediately corrected you. You just don’t like being corrected and have made a fool of yourself for hundreds of posts over the issue during which you never made any kind of case to support your claim other than proclaiming it to be true a few hundred times hoping against lost hope that somebody would believe some idiot standing on a soap box in a park and repeating the same thing over and over again.
“DREMT immediately corrected you.”
Not true, since if DREMT were correct bill would also be wrong at 1:00pm. I’ll go with Madhavi text as bill writes, ClintR’s NASA guy and the experimental video results showing bill’s 1:00pm is correct. DREMT is the single outlier on the soapbox without portfolio.
#3
Troll, begone.
Ball4 says:
DREMT immediately corrected you.
Not true, since if DREMT were correct bill would also be wrong at 1:00pm. Ill go with Madhavi text as bill writes, ClintRs NASA guy and the experimental video results showing bills 1:00pm is correct. DREMT is the single outlier on the soapbox without portfolio.
================================================
There you go again making proclamations without evidence, argument, or logic.
swannie…”ClintR makes grand claims for a guy that has refused to provide us with any evidence of his educational/work experience when asked….”
That’s an appeal to authority. If Clint’s logic is right, it’s right, and it is right. Debate the logic, not a poster’s background, wealth, status, or to whatever it is you appeal.
Some jerks go after Roy’s theories based on his religion, forgetting that Isaac Newton was so religious he wrote a couple of volumes on the Bible.
You might want to take a spoonful of your own medicine and stop calling other posters idiots.
A person who derides another person’s religious beliefs is an idiot.
However that does directly lead to the conclusion we ought to be nicer to you guys since obviously we are dealing here with your religious beliefs.
B Hunter, Remember this famous quote?
Religion is based on one’s individual experience and cultural beliefs. But, science is based on observable evidence and proven facts, not unfounded opinion. The result has been a continual source of contention between those whose beliefs are in opposition to the evidence, such as those of the Evangelical Christian faith who still refuse to accept scientific evidence as fact. The result has been centuries of political/social disagreement which has many times resulted in deadly conflict, including wars.
Don’t forget this other Obvious Truth: “Half the population is below average”. There are lots of morons out there…
Proven facts…like, according to the definition of revolution, the moon only revolves.
E. Swanson, 9:46am comment is just DREMT changing back and forth, agreeing with his “fine” source, then reverting back to disagree with the same “fine” source. DREMT will keep doing this repeatedly for different commenters & claim that he doesn’t.
Just another day on the blog.
Troll, begone.
E. Swanson says:Religion is based on ones individual experience and cultural beliefs. But, science is based on observable evidence and proven facts, not unfounded opinion. The result has been a continual source of contention between those whose beliefs are in opposition to the evidence, such as those of the Evangelical Christian faith who still refuse to accept scientific evidence as fact. The result has been centuries of political/social disagreement which has many times resulted in deadly conflict, including wars.
=====================================
Geez what a flaming libtard! Christians cause wars?!!!? thats just pure BS and blatant racism.
Specific people cause wars even atheists. Stereotyping people by their faith or skin color is pure racism!
==============================
==============================
E. Swanson says: Dont forget this other Obvious Truth: Half the population is below average. There are lots of morons out there
==============================
Well you are well on your way to demonstrated thats the category you fit into.
Bill doesn’t know shit
“Christians cause wars?!!!? thats just pure BS and blatant racism.”
What about the Crusades?
Indeed, B Hunter appears to forget the many religious wars in Europe, which caused many people of Protestant (and other) faiths to migrate to the Americas. Other areas of conflict include Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants fought for many years with the country still divided based on religion as the result. One of the professed reasons to oppose the Soviets in the Cold War was their atheistic rejection of formal religion. It’s been pointed out that our support for South Vietnam was directly related to the fact that many Catholics migrated there when Vietnam was partitioned after the French were defeated. There’s quite a long list if one chooses to study history.
both of you are exactly the low brow kind of moron you think everybody else is.
Bill Hunter you seem to like to use a lot of inflammatory insults such as flaming libtard.
Perhaps you would get farther not using such inflammatory rhetoric.
If you continue your bigoted hate speech you may earn more than that.
E. Swanson says:
Indeed, B Hunter appears to forget the many religious wars in Europe, which caused many people of Protestant (and other) faiths to migrate to the Americas. Other areas of conflict include Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants fought for many years with the country still divided based on religion as the result. One of the professed reasons to oppose the Soviets in the Cold War was their atheistic rejection of formal religion. Its been pointed out that our support for South Vietnam was directly related to the fact that many Catholics migrated there when Vietnam was partitioned after the French were defeated. Theres quite a long list if one chooses to study history.
=========================================
Religious wars are no different than non-religious wars Swanson. It is all about individual greed, possession, control, and power.
None of this has anything to do with any modern non-pagan religion. It has everything to do with leaders using fear to motivate masses to go to war and that fear is always that the other guy having no morals is going to steal from you, rape your women, enslave your children, or intend to kill you. . . .where at least half the time they are right.
B. Hunter wrote
Would you classify the pre-enlightenment religions (the Abrahamic ones and Buddism, Hinduism, etc) as “pagan”? Or would you exclude your favorite sect?
But this has nothing to do with the proven fact that the Moon rotates once a “revolution” around it’s orbit. The fact is, the visible phases of the Moon demonstrate it’s rotation as measured against the Earth-Sun vector, even though the Earth-Sun vector is not fixed, but also rotates once a year against the background of the galaxy/stars. Arguing otherwise is an effort to ignore the findings of science.
E. Swanson says:
Would you classify the pre-enlightenment religions (the Abrahamic ones and Buddism, Hinduism, etc) as pagan? Or would you exclude your favorite sect?
But this has nothing to do with the proven fact that the Moon rotates once a revolution around its orbit. The fact is, the visible phases of the Moon demonstrate its rotation as measured against the Earth-Sun vector, even though the Earth-Sun vector is not fixed, but also rotates once a year against the background of the galaxy/stars. Arguing otherwise is an effort to ignore the findings of science.
=================================
Enlightenment? What is that? Indoctrination about the foundations of white supremacy? Indeed they continue to sell a bill of goods to the inculcated school children.
Hmmmm, enlightenment seems to be a common virtue of mankind that has been exemplified for as long as there has been written language. Its really difficult to make a case the true virtue has made a whole lot of progress. We like to blame religion and barbarism for everything that goes wrong but the past few years demonstrates that evil and violence knows no boundaries with virtue signaling brutes running around bashing heads for a lack of what they see as their version of virtue.
In that regard I suspect this concept of the moon rotating on its own axis probably dates back to pagan moon worshipping ceremonies. No question science and astronomy has made great strides but that doesn’t mean it still doesn’t hold to some falsehoods.
As time wore on and more was learned about the moon nothing has arisen in the cosmos to warrant a change to the concept. Perhaps some of the great astronomers noted the issue but were wise enough to not rock the religious viewpoints of the top folks holding on to the purse strings.
One has to take a dive head first into the sausage making that policy is get a good view of how virtue signalers call for equality yet want to ever strengthen the strength of those who will hold the purse strings on the basis of some rather crude measure of wisdom and enlightenment. A contradiction? You bet!
Meanwhile outside of stargazing, down to earth folks were beginning to engineer stuff like wheels with axles. But single wheels with axles don’t raise the issue either. Only when you start getting into articulating arms and such does the issue really arise and a need for separation of real rotation versus perceived rotation needs to be defined in a more orderly way.
Students visualizing rotations on paper begin to get confused by the old out of date views of things, like rotations separate from a revolution with crisscrossing particle paths where in fact what you are doing is complicating a revolution with a synchronized counter revolution to make the starting point fixed to the stars, exactly the opposite of the convoluted definition they have held with fists tightly grasping on.
Fixing it to the stars though doesn’t fix the issue of rotation of galaxies which someday might be an issue with intergalactic travel if we get that far and another round of adjustments of thinking will become necessary. Does it matter if we build the hierarchy of rotation from the top down or the bottom up?
Some would suggest a hierarchy that starts at our own level for the sake of ease of understanding. Engineers are being taught a more orderly method where a revolution naturally contains a rotation with concentric paths of particles around the object it rotates around. Keeping the particle paths concentric is a necessity in designing stuff that actually does something.
While astronomy has everybody looking at crisscrossing particle paths as the starting point of having zero angular momentum. We don’t know if that’s the case though as our knowledge has found no answer at either the big or small ends of the universe.
Adopting an orderly definition at the common level most useful for 99.9% of the people seems the most appropriate and the burden should be on the astronomical community to actually find some immutable truth in another definition that involves say something inextricably connected to a beginning or end of the universe.
That’s not likely anytime soon though so thats the reason I suspect this concept of rotation has something to do either with pagan ceremony or some early concept moving away from such ceremony that sort of prematurely set it off from the future of engineering which is well exemplified by the orderly nature of rotation found in Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b). What she teaches there is critical to engineers as she quickly moves into articulating arms with multiple hinge points.
That gets really confusing by itself. Building cabinets for example with hidden hinges one can stand in the custom hardwood builder store with a huge display of hidden cabinet hinges that are designed for installation in many different ways.
You can actually find yourself standing there for an hour trying to figure out which hinge does what and gets installed on what face of the cabinet and whether its for an inset, overlapping, or flush door. Diagrams in stock books help immensely but you still find yourself trying to ‘move’ the hinges from a static diagram.
Throw in counter revolutions so you remain fixed to the stars. . . .LMAO!! Best way to understand that is to apply astronomy to the rest of what Madhavi covers in her textbook on rigid body dynamics. You have to read all of Madhavi to begin to see the issues.
Astronomers though still get by with the original concepts pretty much decided by fiat in selecting a perspective.
Meanwhile like all commoners the inculcated run roughshod over the enlightenment of reason and logic. . . .the very thing you started out your response touting.
Gordo, ClintR called me a liar after I stated that I had work experience which included “building” satellites. It should be obvious that no one actually builds a satellite by himself, such efforts require many people working together as a project team. I provided some details of my background and asked him for the same information, to which he did not reply. Several times, I’ve asked you for similar background information after you posted many unscientific claims, including your level of education and work experience, and you also have not replied.
Of course, I still claim that the “non-spinners” are completely wrong, having provided counter examples from my work experience. Your delusional physics doesn’t change reality, the Moon rotates once each orbital “revolution”.
swannie…”Ive asked you for similar background information after you posted many unscientific claims, including your level of education and work experience, and you also have not replied”.
It’s not smart to go on the Net and post personal information about yourself. I personally don’t care what anyone thinks of my educational background, I go on the premise of presenting my case and allowing it to stand on the scientific logic.
I have been participating in blogs for a long time and I have a good idea of what to expect. There are people out there who will ad hom you, insult you, and even try to track you, just because they disagree on a point.
Robertson
” There are people out there who will ad hom you, insult you, and even try to track you, just because they disagree on a point. ”
Ha ha!
This is exactly what YOU do all the time, by insulting all people whose comments you don’t understand anything of, and gtracking them by posting absolutely dumb replies to what you didn’t understand.
Your ignorance of even simplest facts, e.g. concerning reference periods, baselines and anomalies wrt their mean, perfectly fits to your insulting attitude.
And BECAUSE you all the time insult, you get insulted back.
J.-P. D.
binny…I’m beginning to think you don’t like me.
By the way, Ball4/bobdroege…is there a reason you two keep posting within minutes of each other?
Good catch DREMT. Some folks have to manufacture their support.
Every time somebody asks contrarian boasters for a proof confirming their claims, they answer with
” That’s an appeal to authority. ”
This is absolutely disingenuous, and pure cowardice. Using such a nonsensical pseudoargument, you never need to give any proof for all what you pretend.
The main problem to ignorant and contrarian people is that they persist in misunderstanding and misrepresenting things.
The most typical example is that of the Moon’s librations:
– the optical ones, observed by Mankind since millenaries, which are illusions,
and
– the physical ones, which are real but much harder to detect, and whose existence was mathematically proven by Lagrange long time before it became possible to observe them using e.g. heliometers.
Physical librations are tiny irregularities within the (otherwise very stable) rotation of the Moon around its center of mass, and are either
– forced (due to e.g. Earth’s or Sun’s influence)
or
– free (of rather unknown origin: suspected are wobbles caused by collisions with greater asteroids). Odile Calame detected three of them while processing Lunar Laser Ranging data.
*
Contrarians know everything, and thus pretend that all publications concerning librations do not have anything to do with Moon’s rotation around its center of mass.
I know: it’s hopeless.
Nonetheless, I strongly recommend them to read the paper entitled
” On the development of our knowledge of the motion of the Moon around its center of mass ”
published in “The Moon and the Planets ed. 21 (1979) pp 351-359 by
Karol Koziel
Jagellonian University Observatory, Cracow, Poland
https://tinyurl.com/yct7qq7l
{ No: it is NOT a NASA document. But… we should all be grateful that they moved lots of such documents from behind the paywall! }
I anticipate the reaction: ” Bindidon still doesn’t understand the Nonspinner’s position. ”
Ha ha ha haaaah! Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
Correct! You still do not understand. Once you have written a comment demonstrating that you do, I will be sure to let you know.
Pinkelt noch einmal.
Svante randomly pops up, as he tends to do from time to time.
Zweimal.
Nobody knows why he does.
The very best here, Pseudomod, that I very well understand you.
I understand that you don’t want to grasp anything of what people like Karol Koziel wrote.
Btw: try to search for a guy named Veljko Vujičić
He was together with his wife the absolute dictator of the Serbian entity within which Aleksandar S. Tomić made his entire career…
Tomic’s father-in-‘science’ had some need to reinvent the world:
https://tinyurl.com/ya3yboxf
As you permanently behave as a Contrarian, I’m sure you will love it.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Every time somebody asks contrarian boasters for a proof confirming their claims, they answer with
That’s an appeal to authority. ”
An appeal to authority means you cannot explain something on your own so you resort to the theories of authority figures as proof. Disingenuous. Learn something about orbital mechanics and present your own argument.
Basic orbital mechanics is easy to learn and understand. It’s not like more complex motion in 3-D where you have to use matrices to keep tract of 3-D velocities and accelerations. Or relative motion between two or more bodies.
thats correct Bindidon still doesn’t understand the non-spinner position. Its perfectly OK to write the exact same article using the non-spinner position and it doesn’t change a thing except some of the wording.
What is so obvious here and expressed quite obviously by bdgwx when he searched and searched for a gotcha and couldn’t find one it was because the non-spinner viewpoint has zero impact on any known science.
A change in perspective offered by the non-spinners merely requires calculations more similar to those of an engineer than an astronomer. but when it comes to measuring motions or navigating in space it has no consequences other than knowing from where you are starting from, where you are going, and how to calculate it using the observation paradigm you have chosen.
Actually the truth of that is proven by astronomy as its practices. they are often doing it arse backwards and still getting it right.
Both work to come up with the same answers and that’s exactly what proves Bindidon doesn’t understand our position or he wouldn’t be running around trying to dig up stuff to prove us wrong. That applies to the rest of you morons.
He searches and searches for sources speaking the religious words he wants to hear then offers that as evidence the non-spinners are wrong.
I posed a classic philosophy argument here about how a circular coin viewed from a different angle looks like an ellipse.
Bob who responded ignorantly took the argument like I thought it was some great discovery of the conic sections he learned in trigonometry in high school. So he scoffed at it and equated philosophy to underwater basket weaving. Which of course is pretty danged moronic all by itself. Why scoff at a skill one does not hold? I think that’s called possessing an oversized empty head.
I didn’t directly respond to his misidentification of the issue then but will now. The issue isn’t that circles can be ellipses when viewed at different angles the philosophical issue is precisely. . . . is it an ellipse or . . . .is it a circle.
Our perception is telling us it can be both. The philosophical lesson here is don’t especially trust your eyes in philosophical arguments in discussing the underlying nature of things.
And that issue of perspective is only one difference between the spinner and non-spinner position.
The other difference is found in logic. Which I will get to in a minute. And it is found in the engineer perspective of the problem. Engineers actually have to build stuff so they have to be practical, even God like in creating working systems.
No doubt both types actually work together on space missions. But we can probably be thankful they don’t work together on building things. Astronomers just provide specifications and the engineers provide the engineering and design to suit those specifications.
Finally the logic part really gets to the heart of the issue and the heart of cause and effect. One can form a simple syllogism that exposes truth. I have repeated this syllogism over and over again and its import doesn’t sink in through the heavy inculcation around here.
Here it is.
If the moon rotates on its own axis
and if the moon orbits around the earth,
the moon will expose all its sides to the earth.
So we have two premises and a conclusion that follows directly from the two premises. A classic syllogism.
Only problem is the conclusion is wrong in the case of the moon and earth. So one of the premises has to be wrong. This is basically Logic 101, first chapter.
Can any of you morons figure out which one it is? If you do figure it out you get promoted to smart and will have finally thawed a portion of your brain that was frozen by inculcation.
The only alternative is to think that when the earth came to be on the other side of the moon and it still had the same side pointed out at it so the earth must also be orbiting the moon’s central axis. A reincarnation of geocentrism as lunarcentrism and a claim its the second premise that is wrong.
This syllogism is as obvious as the chalk circle on the merry-go-round platform. Understanding this syllogism is a key to understanding cause and effect as we understand it to be to this day.
So anybody around here looking to get promoted?
If the moon rotates on its own axis more or less than once per orbit as moon orbits around the earth, THEN the moon will expose all its sides to the earth. A statement supported by Madhavi text, video demonstrations, NASA guy, DREMT’s source, and even bill here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-485037
Not looking to be promoted, but your logic is not correct.
There is something wrong with this statement
“Here it is.
If the moon rotates on its own axis
and if the moon orbits around the earth,
the moon will expose all its sides to the earth.”
Yes the moon rotates on its own axis
Yes the moon orbits around the earth
No the moon does not expose all sides to earth.
It’s the very definition of synchronous rotation
An object orbits another spinning at the same rate it orbits keeping one side facing the other throughout the orbit.
Your are in classic denial.
Because you still fail to define rotation.
You are incorrect Bob and the reason you are incorrect is because you are ignoring the actual movement patterns of the individual particles in the moon.
This includes the particles that are aligned with an axis at the center of the moon. They must meet this test from Madhavi: ”If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration”
Instead all the particles of the moon, including the particles aligned with the center of the moon, actually move in concentric circles around the earth’s COG at a uniform angular velocity.
this is absolutely necessitated by an orbit of each individual particle. So given the certainty of that motion you cannot add a second motion around the axis of the moon and maintain a constant view of a single face of the moon from the earth’s COG.
Therefore, the moon does not rotate on its own axis. All you can do to change that arrangement is have the earth orbit the moon instead. And we know, from experience, how to classify that belief.
bobd…”No the moon does not expose all sides to earth.
Its the very definition of synchronous rotation”
Bob…will try to stop and ‘LOOK’. It is not possible for a tidally-looked Moon to rotate about a local central axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. The concept of synchronous rotation with a tidally-locked Moon is simply wrong.
With true synchronous rotation the Moon would rotate exactly once about it’s local axis, exposing all sides of the Moon to Earth.
The mistake being made is so obvious it makes me wonder how so many people miss it. I just watched a video in which some idiot drew a line through the Moon and rotated it in position. He advised us to watch the line rotate through 360 degrees.
DUH!!! Off course a Moon with a line through it rotates through 360 degrees while held in one position, But then the dweeb urges us to watch the same line rotate in the same manner as the Moon orbits the Earth with the same face of the Moon always toward the Earth. Naturally, in his deluded mind, he sees the same thing as the Moon rotating in one position.
It is not the same motion!!!! With a tidally-locked Moon, the Moon is trying to move in a straight line and it is being gradually urged into an orbit by gravitational force. Gravity has the Moon locked in one position and it cannot rotate about its own axis. It’s the same as dremt’s ball on a string.
All particles along the line drawn through the Moon in the example with the Moon rotating in place are rotating about a central axis. In the orbiting Moon example all particles along that line are moving in concentric circles around the Earth. They are NOT rotating about a local central axis.
The moon exhibits two axes, one it revolves around and one it rotates around.
Look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.svg
“If the moon rotates on its own axis
and if the moon orbits around the earth,
the moon will expose all its sides to the earth.”
Exactly. With revolve/orbit correctly defined as motion per a ball on a string, adding axial rotation to that motion would indeed mean the moon would expose all its sides to the Earth. That is in accord with the Madhavi text I linked to, the definition of revolve I linked to, ClintR’s wiki quote on rotation, my wiki quote on rotation around a fixed axis, and even ClintR’s (initially Norman’s) NASA guy (at least as far as his definitions go, although he does go on to contradict himself later).
Clearly, then, the moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis, by definition.
DREMT has to botch the definition of revolve to agree with the others, clearly DREMT is alone on a soapbox.
The definition of revolve, again:
“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.”
Remember the video from the space station where the guy swung a ball on a string and let go”
And the ball continued to spin after he let go of it.
Experimental results prove the non-spinners wrong.
So sorry charlie
Desperate stuff, blob, bringing back already-discussed distractions.
DREMT definition: “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.”
In some cases, the axis of rotation is inside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is rotating around the axis of rotation.
In some cases both happen, the ball on string both revolves once on outside axis AND rotates once on inside axis demonstrated in the videos & just like the moon.
DREMT continuously botches definitions by writing: “Clearly, then, the moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis, by definition.”
Well, you didn’t discuss them correctly and until you do, I will keep bringing up experimental observations that prove your position is incorrect.
Just because you discussed it, doesn’t mean you have it right.
To DREMT, experiments and observations are just “distractions”. This causes DREMT to continously botch basic science.
As bill hunter explained at the time:
“its quite simply a conversion from rotating around the hand spinning the ball on the end string to spinning on its axis as it travels in a straight line at its original orbit speed. the axis spinning is generated from the different speeds of the sides of the ball following orbits of different radii.”
“its quite simply a conversion from rotating around the hand spinning the ball on the end string”
According to DREMT definition that would be revolving. bill also botched the definitions.
“In some cases both happen, the ball on string both revolves once on outside axis AND rotates once on inside axis demonstrated in the videos & just like the moon.”
To Ball4, a + b = a. He takes revolution, defined as motion as per a ball on a string (a) adds axial rotation (b) which must be separate and independent of that (a) motion, adds them together, and comes back with (a), motion like a ball on a string. He is arguing that a + b = a.
Yes, both can happen, for example the Earth both revolves and rotates on its own axis. Note that is an example of a + b = a + b, instead.
DREMT is the one writing that a + b = a.
Ball4 is showing by Madhavi text, NASA guy, DREMT definition, experiment, and observation:
a + b = a + b
Then Ball4 is arguing that revolution is defined as motion like the Hubble Telescope, where it remains pointing e.g. North throughout the orbit.
Ball4 needs to back that definition up with a source.
Because my source says revolution is not defined that way.
My source for Hubble revolution is same as defined by DREMT source:
“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.”
Since Hubble orbits the earth, Hubble has an axis of rotation outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object (Hubble) is revolving around that axis of rotation.
Hubble is powered and free to spin, it can also be made to 1) rotate on its own internal axis, or 2) not rotate on its own internal axis depending on observation/service needs.
Hubble also will be deorbited some day and cease to revolve on that external axis. Not sure what a compass on Hubble would resolve as the direction of N at which to point, perhaps DREMT can clarify.
I mean a point on the Hubble Telescope remains oriented towards the same fixed, external point, like a distant star, whilst it orbits.
And no, my source does not define revolution in this way.
Drempty,
Yes it does because it rotates about an axis outside its body, which is how your source defines revolve.
Motion like the Hubble Telescope is not a rotation about an external axis, blob. Once again, you prove that you do not understand what rotation is.
Drempty,
You are confused because you haven’t provided a definition of rotation.
The Hubble Space Telescope does indeed revolve around the earth.
“Motion like the Hubble Telescope is not a rotation about an external axis, blob.”
That’s actually true per source def. and NOT what bob replied to.
Orbital motion like the Hubble Telescope is NOT a rotation about an external axis; orbital motion like the Hubble Telescope is a revolution about an external axis per DREMT source defn.s which DREMT has botched and bob understands correctly.
At times, the Hubble also has a rotation about its internal axis in addition to its revolution about its external axis (like the source ball on string, moons) depending on observation/service needs. Just don’t botch DREMT’s source definitions to write correctly in this field.
a + b = a + b
The Hubble Telescope revolves around the Earth whilst rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction, once per orbit. That is how a point on the telescope remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit.
That is in keeping with the definition of revolution as motion like a ball on a string.
Oh NOES,
The clockwise rotation bullshit again, please make him stop Mr Wizard.
“The Hubble Telescope revolves around the Earth whilst rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction, once per orbit.”
So now DREMT claims a + b = a – b. Ok.
This is true only if a=0 (call that motion revolution about outside object axis) and/or b=0 (call that rotation about inside object axis).
Since Hubble does orbit once on an external axis of revolution, “a” cannot be identically zero therefore in this case b=0. Hubble is not both rotating +b and rotating -b at the same time, Hubble’s “b” is therefore identically 0 which demonstrates mathematically in this case Hubble is not rotating on its own inside axis “b” staring at a distant galaxy while it is orbiting Earth on outside axis “a” which is consistent with NASA guy, Madhavi, DREMT source, experiment and observation.
DREMT’s own formula becomes only orbital Hubble revolution about outside axis “a”:
a + 0 = a + 0
So now DREMT claims a + b = a – b. Ok.
I hope that gets past the blog character map better.
Incorrect, as explained.
Only incorrect when DREMT botches the source definitions of revolution and rotation which is common.
Ball4 argues that a ball on a string is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
However, revolution (a) is defined as motion like a ball on a string.
Axial rotation (b) has to a separate and independent motion to (a).
Motion like a ball on a string (a) plus axial rotation (b) cannot equal motion like a ball on a string (a).
a + b does not equal a.
a + b does not equal a except when b=0 as in Hubble staring at a distant galaxy.
b=0 in the case of the ball on a string, not the Hubble Telescope.
Ball4 argues that a ball on a string is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
However, revolution (a) is defined as motion like a ball on a string.
Axial rotation (b) has to be a separate and independent motion to (a).
Motion like a ball on a string (a) plus axial rotation (b) cannot equal motion like a ball on a string (a).
a + b does not equal a.
a + b does = a + 0 as in Hubble staring at a distant galaxy.
DREMT continually botches the source def. of rotation and/or revolution to incorrectly comment per his own source.
b=0 in the case of the ball on a string, not the Hubble Telescope.
Its really simple to show that the moon is not rotating on its own axis from using Madhavi’s test for rotation when a fixed
axis intersects with the rotating body.
Madhavi stated: ” If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration”
So what you do is draw out on a piece of paper a circle. You put a point dot in the middle of the circle. This dot represents the moons own internal axis. Then you put a point dot outside of the circle. This dot represents the COG of the earth.
finally you randomly place two more dots somewhere in the middle of the circle.
Now you draw the arcs of the motion of all the dots inside of the circle in revolving around the outside dot.
If the motion of the random dots are going around the moons central axis in concentric circles then the moon rotates on its own axis. If the motion of the random dots and the moons central axis are going around the outside dot then the moon rotates on the central axis of the earth. Piece of cake.
A 3 year old can be made to understand this because they aren’t suffering greatly from brain fog from a lifetime of inculcation.
Let me get my Spirogaph set out.
https://www.target.com/p/the-original-spirograph-drawing-set-with-markers/-/A-14794410?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&fndsrc=tgtao&CPNG=PLA_Seasonal%2BShopping_Local&adgroup=SC_Seasonal&LID=700000001170770pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9022853&ds_rl=1246978&ds_rl=1248099&ds_rl=1247068&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgs7e-ev86QIVr4VaBR2qSA1uEAQYASABEgIQKvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
bobd…”An orbit is just the path and has nothing to do with the speed of rotation”.
It’s actually a resultant path formed by the action of gravitational force on the Moon’s linear momentum. If gravity did not act on the Moon it would follow a rectilinear path with the same side facing the Earth as it passed. As it is, the orbit is the same as a rectilinear path with the exception that it keeps curving in an ellipse.
The orbit is a path in which the Moon moves with all particles in the Moon following elliptical orbits. That means no particle can rotate around another.
However, the distance covered in a lunar orbit per unit time is the velocity. Therefore velocity is also a property of the path as is momentum and a slight acceleration toward the Earth due to gravitational force. An orbit is not that simple.
Gordon,
A rectilinear path is a straight path, saying the Moon’s orbit is rectilinear except that it is curved is like saying a bowling ball is a hamburger.
Not going to make a good lunch.
The issue has been settled, blob, over a hundred years ago now, in the Non-Spinners favor. I’m sorry for your loss.
I declare victory, for I am always right and no one can tell me different claims DREMPTY.
No dear fool, it was settled over 300 years ago, in the spinners favor.
The Moon has two axes, one it rotates around and one it revolves around.
How are you doing coming up with a definition of rotation?
How about if an object rotates around an axis within the body it is rotating, if the axis is outside the body it is orbiting?
Baby steps for babies.
‘How about if an object rotates around an axis within the body it is rotating, if the axis is outside the body it is orbiting?”
Then by your own definition, the moon is only orbiting.
No, because two axes have been observed, one the moon orbits around and one the moon rotates around.
blob, an axis implies rotation. If the moon were revolving about one orbital axis whilst also rotating about a second rotational axis then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
That is a simple statement of fact about the product of two simultaneous rotations.
DREMT needs to do the experiment to prove: If the moon were revolving about one orbital axis whilst also rotating about a second rotational axis more than or less than once per orbit only THEN we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
But to DREMT, experiments and observations are “distractions”.
Ball4, experiments and observations are not distractions. The attempted subject-change from blob, earlier, was what I was referring to as a distraction.
DREMPTY,
You keep saying this,
“blob, an axis implies rotation. If the moon were revolving about one orbital axis whilst also rotating about a second rotational axis then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
That is a simple statement of fact about the product of two simultaneous rotations.”
But it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
And it is not a simple statement of fact, it just means you don’ understand the spinners position.
Still waiting on that definition of rotation?
It means turn, like the moon turns in its orbit around a different axis than the one it orbits around.
Two axes, two rotations, yet the moon still keeps one face toward the earth.
“Two axes, two rotations, yet the moon still keeps one face toward the earth.”
Impossible, and proves you do not know what rotation is.
Not impossible, as proven by the ball on string experiment with two distinct axes of rotation inside and outside the object per DREMT’s source definition. But I see DREMT writes changing the subject to include experiments is a “distraction”.
The definition of revolve, again:
“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.”
Where does it say the ball on a string is also rotating on its own axis, Ball4? And why would it, when that would negate the whole purpose and meaning behind the definition?
Right here before the source definition of revolution:
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”
That does NOT negate the whole purpose and meaning behind your source definition of revolution.
Per DREMT source definitions, the ball on string revolves about the outside of ball axis AND rotates about the inside of ball axis, just like the moon:
a + b = a + b
It does not say a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. That is something you incorrectly infer by declaring that the ball has an axis of rotation passing through the ball. It does not. The only axis is external to the ball.
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin” as the ball on string spins on its inside axis pointing once N,W,S,E back to N per orbit of outside axis.
DREMT simply keeps botching the source defn.s: “when the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”..&..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.”
a + b = a + b
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes yours.
I fart in your general direction you ignorant french person
Per DREMT source definitions, the ball on string revolves about the outside of ball axis AND rotates about the inside of ball axis, just like the moon:
a + b = a + b
Incorrect, as explained.
Only incorrect when DREMT botches source definitions, the ball on string revolves about the outside of ball axis AND rotates about the inside of ball axis, just like the moon:
a + b = a + b
Ball4 argues that a ball on a string is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
However, revolution (a) is defined as motion like a ball on a string.
Axial rotation (b) has to be a separate and independent motion to (a).
Motion like a ball on a string (a) plus axial rotation (b) cannot equal motion like a ball on a string (a).
a + b does not equal a.
“However, revolution (a) is defined as motion like a ball on a string.”
a + b does not equal a except when b=0 for Hubble staring at a distant galaxy, or the ball on string not rotating on its own inside axis.
“An object can have more than one axis of rotation, such as some asteroids.”
“The important thing to remember is that objects are in motion throughout the universe, whether they are orbiting each other, a common point of gravity, or spinning on one or more axes as they move.”
DREMT simply keeps botching the source defn.s: “when the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”..&..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.”
a + b = a + b
Wrong, Ball4. Pay attention this time:
Ball4 argues that a ball on a string is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
However, revolution (a) is defined as motion like a ball on a string.
Axial rotation (b) has to be a separate and independent motion to (a).
Motion like a ball on a string (a) plus axial rotation (b) cannot equal motion like a ball on a string (a).
a + b does not equal a.
a + b does = a + 0 as in Hubble staring at a distant galaxy.
b=0 in the case of the ball on a string, not the Hubble Telescope.
DREMT makes is so easy to understand, but the idiots still can’t understand.
a = revolving (orbiting)
b = axial rotation
Ball on a string = a
Moon = a
Hubble, fixed on distant galaxy = a + b
Earth = a + b
You torqued the head off of the bolt with that one there ClintR.
Ball on a string = a + b
Moon = a + b
Hubble, fixed on distant galaxy = a
Earth = a + b
There fixed that for you
You had 1/4 correct
That’s less than a D-
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of revolving (orbiting): “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of rotating: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
NASA revolving (orbiting) = a
NASA rotating = b
Ball on a string = a
Moon = a
Hubble, fixed on distant galaxy = a + b
Earth = a + b
ClintR botches def. of rotation on internal axis just like DREMT. The non-spinners observe an object rotating on its own axis once per orbit and make a claim that object does NOT rotate on its own axis once per orbit.
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of revolving (orbiting): “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
a) Ball on string revolving (orbiting): “If ball on string walks in a circle around your friend, ball on string is revolving.”
—–
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of rotating: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
b) Ball on string example of rotating: “If ball on string does not change its location, but turns around to not face your friend, ball on string is rotating.”
—–
Therefore per ISS Flight Director & the other NASA guy orbiting and rotating for you walking around your friend and turning around is same as:
ball on a string = a) + b)
Q.E.D.
a = revolving (orbiting)
b = axial rotation
Ball on a string = a
Moon = a
Chalk circle = a
Hubble, fixed on distant galaxy = a + b
Earth = a + b
I already know DREMT, you don’t have to keep telling the blog you botch the def. of rotation. ClintR’s ISS guy and NASA guy do get it right though for the crowd watching your 3-ring circus.
I already know Ball4, you don’t have to keep telling the blog you botch the def. of revolution and rotation. The crowd can see you are unable to combine two motions correctly, and are unaware when only one motion is present.
swannie…”Religion is based on ones individual experience and cultural beliefs. But, science is based on observable evidence and proven facts, not unfounded opinion”.
That’s the way science should be, and used to be. That’s no longer true.
1)Most people seem to accept the Big Bang theory even though its premise is in the same category as religion. In Genesis, it claims God created the world. In theoretical physics, it is claimed the entire universe appeared out of an emptiness in a flash. Given the option, I prefer the God theory because there is an omnipotent being responsible for the creation. With the BB theory there is no one, nothing, nada…it just happens for no reason.
No one can disprove that God did not create the world but no one should be asked to disprove the bs of the BB theory. It’s obvious nonsense. Neither matter nor energy has ever been proved to appear out of nothing.
2)We are now being prodded to accept that gravity is not a force but a space-time anomaly. No one can demonstrate that time exists yet we are being prodded to accept it can dilate and that space can change its dimensions, leading to a space-time warping. Utter nonsense!!
We know the basis of time, the second, is based on the rotation of the Earth. It’s not just me claiming that, Max Planck pointed it out in his book on heat. He said:
“Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us”.
Planck knew that but it seems to have escaped Einstein. Now we have a load of wannabees, who believed Einstein, trying to change our units so they are based on intangibles like time and space.
3)We are constantly prodded to accept that life as we know it evolved out of 5 basic non-organic elements. This theory is based on the musings of one man, Darwin, who performed no experiments to demonstrate how life can form from non-organic elements.
In his arrogance, Darwin postulated that an unseen, unmeasured force called ‘natural selection’ is responsible for continuing this evolution. We can verify certain aspects related to heredity using the scientific method but all of it is related to one species. Never have we seen one species form into another as required by the theory of evolution.
4)Today, our democratic freedoms have been infringed upon based on the theories of mathematicians using unvalidated computer models and theorists speculating about social distancing and passing it off as fact. Computer modelling is not even science since it cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method, yet here we are being forced to accept bs theories about a virus which no one has ever seen before and have no idea how it is going to act.
Sorry, science is dying a slow death right before our eyes and people are tripping over each other trying to hasten its demise.
You are mostly right Gordon. Actually until 1929 religion was clearly ahead of science on the topic of ‘the universe’ having a beginning.
I am not so pessimistic though. Get past all the loudmouths who think they know everything and there is a steadfast and humble and God fearing silent majority there that tends to ride to the rescue when needed the most.
Yes, a clear majority:
Christianity (31.2%)
Islam (24.1%)
Irreligious affiliation (16%)
Hinduism (15.1%)
Buddhism (6.9%)
Folk religions (5.7%)
Judaism (0.2%)
“Sorry, science is dying a slow death right before our eyes and people are tripping over each other trying to hasten its demise.”
Great quote, Gordon Robertson
I see Bindidon showed up while I was gone. As predicted, he’s still confused about “libration”. If he were able to think for himself, he would realize libration is more evidence Moon is not rotating about its axis. But, he can’t think for himself.
(For those interested, libration is apparent motion. The motion is not really happening. It is just that the changes in Earth/Moon orbits causes different views of Moon from Earth. The Moon is not actually rocking back and forth.)
The different views explain 2% out of 9%.
Idiots make stupid comments like that, 90-100% of the time.
Said the idiot making a stupid comment.
ClintR,
One of the librations is caused by the Moon rotating faster than it revolves for part of the orbit and then rotating slower than it revolves for part of the orbit, all in accordance with the Laws of Kepler.
The Moon’s orbit being tilted relative to the Earth’s rotation is another.
The Moon’s rotational axis being tilted with respect to the Moons rotation is a third.
Ask Gordon, he can tell you about the fourth, I learned about that one from him.
Now bob is one of the more consistent idiots. He makes stupid comments 100% of the time.
I notice no counter argument.
If you were a lawyer, you’d be pounding on the table.
You won’t get a counter argument because I don’t argue with idiots.
However, I will state some facts which you will attempt to pervert, but others may appreciate.
Your first paragraph contains your ongoing deceit that Moon is rotating on its axis. You end the paragraph with “…all in accordance with the Laws of Kepler.” That’s inaccurate, incompetent, and deceitful. Kepler’s Laws involved orbital motion. They had NOTHING to do with axial rotation. You are attempting to pervert and corrupt the works of a great scientist to promote your false religion.
If your response has even one incorrect or misleading statement, I will not reply. That, of course, means I won’t be replying. I don’t argue with idiots.
You will respond, you can’t help yourself.
I am sure you will agree that the speed of the Moon’s rotation is constant.
You are right that Kepler’s laws are about the speed of the moon in its orbit.
Well since I don’t like arguing with liars and you think I’m an idiot and you don’t argue with idiots, maybe you should stop replying to my posts.
But you can’t help yourself, can you.
So If I am an idiot, you will let me have the last word.
If you respond that means I am not an idiot.
Thanks for playing.
bobd..”One of the librations is caused by the Moon rotating faster than it revolves for part of the orbit and then rotating slower than it revolves for part of the orbit, all in accordance with the Laws of Kepler”.
Bob…it’s not the Moon’s rotation that increases, that would require a force tangential to Moon’s surface to speed it up. In this case, it would require such a torque to start it moving.
The libration effect to which you refer is due to the gravitational force components varying slightly. If the orbit was totally circular, the force of gravitation would be applied equally throughout the orbit along a radial line and you’d never see that libration effect.
A circle has one central axis but an ellipse has two focal points, or foci. The Earth is at one focal point and the elliptical orbit is closest to the Earth at that point. At the far end, there is another focal point an equal distance from the far end as the Earth focal point is from the near end.
With a circular orbit, gravity always acts to accelerate bodies at 9.8 m/s^2, provided they are close enough. The gravitational force acts on an orbiting body along a straight radial line. However, as the eccentricity of an orbit increases, that radial line force no longer acts at full strength. Rather, the near face of the Moon receives only a portion of that force, albeit most of it. Enough to keep it under control in orbit.
To calculate the radial line in an eccentric part of the orbit, two lines are required from the Moon to both focal points. Bisecting the angle formed gives the new, instantaneous radial direction. There is a tiny angle between that new radial line and a line drawn from the Earth to the Moon.
The Moon’s near face is still pointed essentially at the Earth but we can now see slightly more of the surface around the near face. The Moon has not rotated to reveal this extra surface, it’s our view angle that has increased since the Moon’s near face is not pointed totally at the Earth in that location but faces away very slightly.
An alternate explanation:
The claim that the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth is true only for a circular orbit. As the circle becomes an ellipse, the degree of eccentricity can change that condition so more of the Moon’s surface is seen. That does not mean the Moon is rotating, it means the Moon is trying to move in a straight line and the gravitational force forcing it into an orbit is slightly decreased.
The way the near face faces the Earth is a property of the Moon’s linear momentum. If the Moon was flying past the Earth at its current altitude, with the near face facing us, and not rotating, there are no forces on it to start it rotating. Therefore it would fly off into the distance with all particles in the Moon following parallel, linear paths.
In that case, we’d gradually be able to see the backside of the Moon more but we can’t because the Moon’s linear momentum is being directed into an elliptical orbit by gravity.
Earth’s gravity accelerates the Moon slightly in a radial direction, causing its linear momentum to change course slightly. The sum of those slight changes of direction through 360 degrees is the elliptical orbit. Gravity cannot apply a torque to cause a rotation because it is acting equally across the near face.
Some have claimed the Moon rocks back and forth in its orbit but there are no tangential forces on it to cause such a rocking motion.
In the more eccentric parts of the elliptical orbit, however, the near face is pointed slightly away from the Earth’s centre, so we can see around the edge a bit. Not much, a few degrees. The Moon does not have to rotate, the elliptical orbit causes the libration. Meantime, all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric, elliptical orbits.
Right! It is senseless to try to argue the small perturbations of an ellipse changes the fundamental nature of revolution. That is just a distraction and not an argument for another definition.
Just follow the logical conclusion if you start with this statement
“Meantime, all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric, elliptical orbits.”
Since the particles on the far side of the Moon move in bigger circles, they are moving faster than the ones on the near side, so the speed differential should cause them to move apart. Since they do not move apart, the moon must turn to keep them the same distance apart.
The only conclusion you can make is that the Moon is spinning to keep them the same distance apart.
No, the only conclusion you can make is that the moon is orbiting. Motion like a ball on a string.
bobdroege says:
Just follow the logical conclusion if you start with this statement
“Meantime, all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric, elliptical orbits.”
Since the particles on the far side of the Moon move in bigger circles, they are moving faster than the ones on the near side, so the speed differential should cause them to move apart. Since they do not move apart, the moon must turn to keep them the same distance apart.
The only conclusion you can make is that the Moon is spinning to keep them the same distance apart.
========================================
Nope! The moon is rotating in the same way as if it were rotating in a perfect circle around the earth’s COG. The elliptical orbit creates an illusion of a wobble called libration. No doubt there is a minor gravitational pull to vary slightly the speed of its rotation around the earth’s COG but its so tiny maybe a millimeter or something like that and it gets compensated for in the other direction every month. Calling that a spin around its axis is like calling an ant on an aircraft carrier the cause of the aircraft carriers displacement.
But I will give you guys credit for it. The moon rotates back and forth on its axis 1 millimeter in each direction for net zero spin on its axis. Heck I might even concede a few meters if you give me some calcs. . . .but its still going to sum up to zero spin on its own axis for each revolution around the earth.
You guys aren’t really making any kind of an argument for the moon rotating on its own axis quite simply because there is no rational such argument. So you keep blindly pecking at the edges of its obvious rotation around the earth’s COG with elliptical variations. Why not jump next into the moon’s mascons?
DREMPTY Trips
“No, the only conclusion you can make is that the moon is orbiting. Motion like a ball on a string.”
Well not exactly like, cause the Moon is actually in an elliptical orbit, the ball on a string more circular.
But as the dude on the space station demonstrated, the ball is actually spinning, as he lets it go it continues to spin because it was spinning before he let it go in accordance with one of Newtons laws. An object in motion (spinning) will stay in motion (spinning) unless a force is acted on it.
Good try Bill Hunter,
But I wasn’t making the libration argument, I was making a different argument.
Are you feeling out of sorts?
But if you were on the Moon in your easy chair, looking at the constellation Aquarious, it would slowly move out of view and in about 29 days in would be back in the same spot as when you started looking at it.
And by the way the Moon spins at a nearly constant rate, as verified by observations since at least the time of Newton and Cassini.
…and you already had your answer on the ball spinning, blob. You brought it up only a few comments further upthread. Getting a bit repetitive now.
after all this time he still doesn’t understand the non-spinner position.
The non-spinner’s position is watching a chalk circle spin once on its own axis per revolution of the mgr center is that chalk circle did NOT spin once on its own axis.
It’s a 3-ring circus watching the non-spinners DREMT, bill and ClintR try to discover rigid body dynamics as told by the NASA and ISS guys.
The spinner’s position is watching a chalk circle rotate about a mgr center and claim that chalk circle spun once on its own axis, despite that being impossible.
It’s a 3-ring circus watching the spinners Ball4, blob and Bindidon try to discover rigid body dynamics as told by Madhavi et al.
Strawman ALERT! Actually:
The spinner’s position is watching a chalk circle rotate about a mgr center and observing that chalk circle spun once on its own axis while realizing that chalk circle spinning more or less than once is impossible.
So is every atom of the merry-go-round both revolving about the center of the merry-go-round and rotating on its own axis, according to the Spinners?
a + b
as per the NASA and ISS guys.
Normally when you add one thing to another thing you end up with something different to what you started with. How come that does not happen with the way the Spinners see revolution and axial rotation?
You see, you start with revolution, which is defined as motion like the chalk circle. Then you add axial rotation, which is a separate and independent motion to that…and yet somehow you end up with motion like the chalk circle at the end.
Quite the puzzler.
Per the ISS and NASA guys def. of a+b:
You see, you start with revolution, which is defined as motion like the chalk circle about the external axis center of the mgr. = a
Then you add one axial rotation of the chalk circle per rev. about its own internal axis, which is a separate and independent motion “b” to that…and end up with motion a + b at the end.
As per ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
That makes absolutely no sense.
If you start with “revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit” being defined as motion like the chalk circle
then add axial rotation, which has to be separate and independent from that motion
then you must
end up with different motion to that of the chalk circle.
Making sense of a+b that the ISS and NASA guys write is your job DREMT. Go for it. The circus crowd already knows you can’t make sense of it, just means more effort by you is needed.
The circus crowd recognizes that Ball4 is talking complete nonsense, and howls with derision.
Now DREMT is mistaken about the crowd reaction too. Here’s what DREMT needs to make an effort to make sense of:
As per ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
When DREMT does understand that, I am sure the crowd will applaud. The ISS guy’s stuff will then also make sense to DREMT.
The crowd also laughs at Ball4 not realizing “ClintR’s NASA guy” and “the ISS guy” are the same person.
DREMT, there is 1) Robert Frost: Instructor and Flight Controller in the Flight Operations Directorate at NASA and 2) the ISS guy with the ball and string demo. in the video.
I’ll use Robert Frost’s 2016 moon words for other objects a+b:
“The chalk circle both rotates once on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the mgr center in about 1 minute.”
“The ball on string both rotates once on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about center axis in about 1 minute.”
“Each piece of bdgwx LP both rotates once on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about LP center about 33 1/3 rpm.”
When DREMT does understand, I am sure Frost, the ISS guy, and the circus crowd will all applaud.
Ah, that ISS guy. The crowd jeers at DREMT’s embarrassment.
However the crowd soon laughs again when they remember that Ball4 believes the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis.
Ball4 believes his own eyes and agrees with Robert Frost about the moon.
However, the crowd are still well aware that the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis.
bdg…”Since the particles on the far side of the Moon move in bigger circles, they are moving faster than the ones on the near side, so the speed differential should cause them to move apart”.
That’s the case here on Earth and nothing flies apart. A particle at the Equator is moving at roughly 1000 mph whereas a particle 10 feet from the North Pole is moving roughly 1 mph.
On a rigid body, the speed of individual particles is of no concern since during rotation or translation all particles are forces to move together. When you take the rotational (angular) velocity of a rigid body, you take the velocity of a radial line through the body from an axis.
On the Earth, if you take a radial line from the Earth’s core to a point on the Equator, that line is rotating at roughly 1000 mph. It does not matter that different points on the line are moving at different speeds, the radial line rotates about 25,000 miles in a day.
Supposing that line extends from the Earth’s core to the where it intercepts the Greenwich Meridian on the Equator. Suppose it’s origin in the core is the NS axis of the Earth. Every radial line to the Greenwich Meridian extending from that N-S axis rotates at exactly the same angular velocity despite the fact that particles on the Equator are traveling 1000 times faster than at either pole.
It’s the same with the Moon. The Moon orbits at the rate of a radial line from the Earth’s core through the Moon. Every particle along that radial line through the Moon is turning at the same angular velocity and they all complete one orbit in the same time. As far as the particles within the Moon along that radial line they are orbiting in concentric orbits at the same angular velocity because they are all part of a rigid body.
Their individual tangential velocities are of no concern since they don’t determine the time it takes for the Moon to complete one orbit. Their velocities are an effect of the angular velocity of the rigid body and not due to individual particle momentum.
I see that “non”idiot ClintR did not understand anything of what I wrote about Moon’s optical and physical librations, let alone would he be able to understand what people like
– Cassini, d’Alembert, Newton, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace
and recently
– Habibullin, Eckhardt, Calame, Migus, Moons etc etc
have written about them.
Doesn’t matter… because the opinion of people insulting others by naming them idiots never matters.
*
An interesting point is that Tobias Mayer performed – on the base of Euler’s work on Moon’s motion – such a careful analysis of Moon’s libration in longitude that he was able to setup Moon tables allowing for precise determination (to half a degree) of the longitudinal position of ships on sea.
Mayer submitted his tables to the British government (who had proposed 20,000 £ for an accurate work) but died before payment. His widow nevertheless obtained 3,000.
J.-P. D.
I see that idiot Bindidon did not understand anything of what I wrote about Moon’s librations being only apparent. He can’t understand reality, so he rejects it.
And now he’s off on tide tables!
The poor idiot has no clue. At least he’s content being an idiot.
And… I see in turn that the insulting genius ClintR is not even able to correctly read a comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-484952
Everybody can read there:
” The main problem to ignorant and contrarian people is that they persist in misunderstanding and misrepresenting things.
The most typical example is that of the Moon’s librations:
– the optical ones, observed by Mankind since millenaries, which are illusions,
and
– the physical ones, which are real but much harder to detect, and whose existence was mathematically proven by Lagrange long time before it became possible to observe them using e.g. heliometers. ”
*
The tendency to permanently insult others is usually inversely proportional to the ability to learn and understand things.
But it reaches a maximum when people having an unusually dense brain – like do have e.g. ClintR and Robertson – prefer to discredit, denigrate and hence discard the work of others.
Never and never would such arrogant boasters be ever able to understand let alone to numerically solve differential equations of the second order as presented by Newton, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace and many others.
Shame on you cowards!
And… yes: it’s better to be an “idiot” than to be a “non”idiot.
All is a matter of correctly interpreting details…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, besides your ignorance of the subject, you also appear to have difficulty with the language. I suspect English is not your first language. You seem to believe I am insulting you, yet you are glad to be an idiot. So, as you acknowledge you are an idiot, it is not an insult form me to also acknowledge it.
And, as I mentioned earlier, your clinging to libration as somehow evidence that Moon is rotating about its axis, simply indicates your ignorance of the subject. When you don’t understand a subject, things you find on the Internet can just confuse you more.
Maybe if you list some more names you’ve found on wikipedia, you will impress other idiots.
ClintR
” So, as you acknowledge you are an idiot, it is not an insult form me to also acknowledge it. ”
No I didn’t.
I wrote: ” it’s better to be an “idiot” than to be a “non”idiot. ”
Maybe one day you understand.
J.-P. D.
binny…”The most typical example is that of the Moon’s librations: – the optical ones, observed by Mankind since millenaries, which are illusions,..”
You seem to be using libration as evidence of rotation whereas the non-spinners are arguing that libration is an apparent motion. It is not rotation simply because there are no forces that can cause such a rotation. The apparent rotation is an artefact of orbital motion in an elliptical orbit.
The reason the orbit is elliptical is that the Earth’s gravitational force weakens slightly in the more eccentric parts of the orbit. It is being applied at a partial angle, rather than directly, in certain parts of the orbit and the radial component causing the orbit weakens slightly. That allows the Moon’s linear momentum to have a greater effect, causing the greater eccentricity near the focal point away from the other focal point where the Earth resides.
The radial component is the key to libration. In a purely circular orbit, the radial component would always point to the centre of the Earth. In an ellipse, which is an elongated circle, the radial component no longer points right at the centre of the Earth but in a direction perpendicular to the tangent to the elliptical curve.
A slope of the tangent to a curve can be calculated as the first derivative of the curve’s equation but there is a physical meaning as well. If you treat a portion of any curve as part of the circumference of a circle that fits that portion of the curve, you can define the tangent as a line drawn perpendicular to the radius of that circle. You can find that radius on an ellipse by draw lines from each focal point to any point on the ellipse and bisecting the angle formed between the lines. The bisector is now the radial line along which the orbital gravitational force is applied.
That radial line points away from the centre of the Earth in parts of an elliptical orbit but the force of gravity must act along that radial line. Therefore the full gravitational force is not applied to the Moon, only a component of it that can be calculated with the sine or cosine of the angle between the radial line and the line along which gravity is applied. Since the angle is very small the radial component is close to full gravitational force.
However, since the radial line through the near face is now pointed slightly away from the Earth’s centre, we can now see slightly around the edge of the near face. That is what longitudinal libration means. No rotation, just a different view angle due to the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit.
Where’s Tim now that we are discussing his subject?
Bindidon says:
ClintR did not understand anything of what I wrote about Moons optical and physical librations, let alone would he be able to understand what people like
Cassini, dAlembert, Newton, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace
and recently
Habibullin, Eckhardt, Calame, Migus, Moons etc etc
have written about them.
Doesnt matter because the opinion of people insulting others by naming them idiots never matters.
==============================
I haven’t seen Cassini, dAlembert, Newton, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, and recently Habibullin, Eckhardt, Calame, Migus, Moons etc etc either in this forum nor having provided any evidence in support of the notion the non-spinners are offering in here. If you are going to appeal to authority don’t do it in a fallacious manner but instead bring the evidence and the arguments they make in support of your notion.
Without that you are just blabbering. DREMT brought in Madhavi. I recognized Madhavi’s argument and see the complete logic in it. I have been talking about a complete lack of logic with the spinner position and so far nobody has offered anything in support of such a logic, beyond . . . .Gee. . . .Guys. . . .from space it looks like its spinning on its axis. IMO, it only looks like that because nobody is looking at what its spinning around and such they came up with this idea of synchronous rotation, which kind of makes sense if you see that rotation for what it is as rotating around the earth’s COG.
Bob above suggest we look at the fact that the particles on the outer concentric circle are moving faster than the ones on the inner concentric circle. Very true! But spinning on ones axis requires the particles on the other side of the moon to go in opposite directions when in fact they are all going in roughly the same direction. IMO, when considering perturbations of orbit maybe the difference between orbiting and rotating is when the smaller object overlaps the COG of the larger object. Up until then its just a chalked circle revolving around on a mgr.
Swanson showed up to start backing away from his claim that he had “built satellites”. He now claims he was only on a “team”. Kinda like the junior assistant janitor is on the “team”.
I guess you have to get promoted to full janitor, before they tell you what satellite “team” you are on….
Te TROLL ClintR posts another infantile effort to denigrate me for my work experience. I worked in the Attitude Control Systems group. FYI, that’s the group that is responsible for designing the system(s) which control the rotation of satellites. Ever seen an analog computer?
Swanson, quit trying to pretend you’re so abused. Your nonsensical whining just makes you even more of an idiot.
You’re the one that claimed you “built satellites”. You got caught and had to admit you only worked in a large “team”. But, you failed to mention the name of the “satellites”, plural, that you teamed on. And, you forgot to mention how those satellites violated the laws of physics.
That’s what you get for trying to pretend you’re an authority.
The TROLL ClintR continues to display his ignorance of orbital engineering and science. He repeats his silly questions, while refusing to provide us with the same information regarding his own education and experience. He’s not at all interested in my answers, he just throws out more obfuscation to cover up his lack of understanding. He’s just another moron.
You’re the one that claimed you “built satellites”. You got caught.
That’s what you get for trying to pretend youre an authority.
The TROLL ClintR wrote:
I still claim that I “built satellites”, with the same common sense usage as a carpenter who might write that he “built houses” for a living. One must conclude that English is a second language for you. Get a life, TROLL
Yes, after getting caught, you modified your statement.
If you really knew anything about “orbital engineering and science”, you would know that the “chalk circle” is not rotating about it axis. But, you don’t understand that simple “idiot test”, do you?
ClintR observes the chalk circle spin (or per ISS guy “turn around”) once on its own internal axis during its one revolution and then claims the chalk circle did not spin.
Fun to watch, just like a 3-ring circus, DREMT, ClintR, and bill.
Those who want to believe a chalk circle drawn at the edge of the platform on a merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis, rather than simply rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, are beyond help. It is physically impossible for it to rotate on its own axis.
It is physically impossible for that chalk circle to rotate on its own axis more or less than once per revolution of the mgr.
Stop the merry-go-round rotating:
Can the chalk circle rotate on its own axis? No.
Is the chalk circle moving? No.
Start the merry-go-round rotating.
Can the chalk circle rotate on its own axis? No.
Is the chalk circle moving? Yes.
So what is the chalk circle doing? Rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. Same as every other part of the merry-go-round.
Start the merry-go-round rotating. DREMT watches the chalk circle rotate once on its own axis per chalk circle revolution then writes: “Can the chalk circle rotate on its own axis? No.”
DREMT doesn’t believe his own eyes.
“So what is the chalk circle doing?”
a + b
Same as every other part of the mgr. Check with the NASA guy and the ISS guy DREMT, they believe their own eyes as do I.
I do not watch the chalk circle rotate once on its own axis per chalk circle revolution. I watch the chalk circle revolve about the center of the merry-go-round, and not rotate on its own axis.
a
The circus crowd enjoys & gets that DREMT, that’s how you botch the definition of rotation and/or close your eyes. The chalk circle “turns around” once per rev.:
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of rotating: “If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
b) chalk circle example of rotating: “If chalk circle does not change its location, but turns around to not face your friend, chalk circle is rotating.”
…but the chalk circle does change its location, because it is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
“but the chalk circle does change its location”
Yes! Revolving on the rotating mgr. DREMT must have peeked.
a+b means the chalk circle does change its location while it “turns around” adding the two motions. Just like the moon.
That makes absolutely no sense.
If you start with “revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit” being defined as motion like the chalk circle
then add axial rotation, which has to be separate and independent from that motion
then you must
end up with different motion to that of the chalk circle.
To make sense of it, effort is needed DREMT, apply some.
The circus crowd recognizes that Ball4 is talking complete nonsense, and howls with derision.
Yes, my Dad who was an engineer on the Apollo program actually had a Heathkit analogue computer before he got his first home digital computer a Commodore 64.
But all this is irrelevant to this issue. This issue as far as astronomy is concerned is more a riddle like what come first a revolution or rotation – like chicken or egg.
From the engineering perspective the question is about an orderly easy to understand, explain, and build perspective. I think in one of my first posts astronomers may have adopted it from a mapping of the universe perspective providing for a differentiation from that perspective of revolution from rotation. But when you get up close and personal to the issue like in engineering the absurdity of that view begins to expose itself as either illogical or overly complicated, or both. I am going with the last choice.
B Hunter wrote:
When an engineer is working on a problem on Earth which may not need to include the fact that the Earth rotates once a day, sure, there’s no need to add the extra complexity. That said, when the project requires more detail, such as shooting an artillery shell over long distances, then the Coriolis Effect must be included in the math. Building aircraft requires much more attention to aerodynamics than building a car, since aerodynamic drag determines fuel consumption, other things being equal. With satellites and space travel, even greater detail is required to meet the demands of the problem.
The Apollo program probably required instruments (3-axis gyros) which were used to measure the rotation of the spacecraft. Those same instruments included on the lander, if they had sufficient accuracy, would also measure the Moon’s rotation once an orbit (aka: revolution). Maybe there’s still some such data buried in obscure NASA files or published in some journal, would you believe that factual evidence if it were available?
No, because what they are measuring is the moon orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
Swanson reveals he still does not understand.
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of revolving (orbiting) is exactly what Moon is doing. The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis.
E. Swanson says:
Maybe theres still some such data buried in obscure NASA files or published in some journal, would you believe that factual evidence if it were available?
===============================
Some one early on argued that this was an important argument because it exposes the lack of skepticism with authority of the folks that believe in the global warming theory as well. They simply think because a scientist says what he believes he MUST have incontrovertible evidence of it or he would never say it.
Elevating scientists without science to the level of Gods is a religion its not science. By all means Swanson if you can dig up some dusty article with a logical argument from the files of NASA we will compare it point by point to every other argument offered up in this forum and grant no one special status because they are famous or a government agency or anything at all beyond the compulsion of their argument and evidence.
thats how science works.
Bill Hunter,
Swanson asked if you would believe data and evidence, not if you would believe the opinion of scientists.
You know there is a difference, don’t you?
But then you expect us to take your opinion that the Moon doesn’t spin as gospel truth, don’t you?
Bob I was just making that exact point clear as you have Bindidon listing the names of scientists above as evidence. Certainly feel welcome at anytime to actually introduce some evidence into your side of the argument.
I already have introduced enough evidence to prove the spinners case in about a dozen ways.
The Moon doesn’t point in the same direction as it revolves around the earth, therefore it is spinning.
That should be enough except for those inculcated against such evidence.
but wait there’s more, just send me the separate shipping and handling fee.
1) The fact that we perpetually see the same hemisphere of the Moon is proof that it’s rotating.
2) Simple answer: Have a little girl sitting on a chair. Consider the girl to be the Moon. Have a boy standing watching the Moon girl. The boy is the Earth. Have a third person start moving the Moon girl around the Earth boy. If the chair does not rotate the Earth boy will see the other sides of the moon girl. The moon girl has to rotate in order for the Earth boy to see only one side of the moon girl.
3) Since we know the moon is going around the earth in ~27.3 day, and we do see the same side all the time, it mean the moon HAS to rotate once every 27.3 day, in order to stay face-locked. If not we would see a different side all the time, and that side would be dependent on the longitude you are at and the time of the year (in the case the moon was not rotating at all
4) The best way to demonstrate this is to have a friend stand facing you; then have her put her index finger on top of her head pointing at you then have her start walkng in a circle around you always keeping her face toward you. Observe her finger relative to the ceiling or floor. You will see it rotates one time as she walks a full circle around you.
5) The fact that it is orbiting the Earth, yet we only see one face, IS the proof it is rotating. If it wasn’t we would see all of it as it orbited the Earth.
6) The fact that we only see one face of the moon is the proof it is rotating on its axis at the same rate it orbits the earth. One full orbit, one full rotation. This phenomenon is called Tidal Locking
All from different people all from Quora
Bob says:
4) The best way to demonstrate this is to have a friend stand facing you; then have her put her index finger on top of her head pointing at you then have her start walkng in a circle around you always keeping her face toward you. Observe her finger relative to the ceiling or floor. You will see it rotates one time as she walks a full circle around you.
======================================
I guess you didn’t notice they were all proclamations that the moon rotates on its axis. But I like this one in particular. The girls finger on her head pointing at you is sitting on the supposed axis.
So instead of pointing at you she should point to the ceiling. Better yet make it long pencil that hits the ceiling. Then when you walks around you she will scribe a large circle on the ceiling around you. And you also have your finger pointed at the ceiling that will be the middle of the circle she just scribed and the axis upon which the girl is rotating.
LMAO! What a Bozo!! You just made our case!
Yeah you change it to something else and claim it supports your case.
ROTFLMAO
The girls finger points in all directions as she walks around, meaning her finger is rotating as she revolves.
Simple
You are not very good at spatial awareness
bobdroege says:
Yeah you change it to something else and claim it supports your case.
ROTFLMAO
The girls finger points in all directions as she walks around, meaning her finger is rotating as she revolves.
Simple
You are not very good at spatial awareness
==============================
Of course it moves around Bob. The non-spinner position recognizes that. But the issue is HOW it moves around.
Madhavi specifies:
” If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
and she says:
”while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.
In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction, whereas in
the second case, point O remains fixed.”
The particles of the axis in your example are moving identically to all the particles in an arc that intersects the girl, not just her alleged axis particles which are supposed to not move relationship to the other particles that are supposed to be rotating around her axis.
In the two axes example of the earth one rotation on an axis parallel to the suns axis is the seasonal rotation around the sun an annual rotation. The rotations on the earths axis is a daily rotation that defines days. They are different axes at different angles. The moons axis and rotation that defined days vanished when rotations around its own axis ceased and seasons became night and day (or night and month) If the earth becomes tidal locked to the sun both days and seasons will disappear and the axis of the earth will be called the earth’s spin axis by all the illogical astronomers who would fail Madhavi’s class if they didn’t get smart on the topic from Madhavi’s instruction. And seeing as how astronomers have unique stuff going on like eliptical orbits there probably is some need for a Madhavi class specifically tailored for astronomers. So why don’t they do it? Convention dies hard is why. Here you aren’t talking about something that is critical to anything astronomers do so why mess up the communications and methods currently used? I predict they will at some point when the discover something that matters as engineers found out a long time ago when it was determined they needed a smarter method of communication to do the jobs they were being asked to do. Simple as that is the explanation for why something stupid can be found in a science that is very smart. Fixing stuff that one might think needs fixing has to be weighed against the consequences even if it absolutely needs fixing to be right.
This is the foundation of policy making. Yep there are things in this world caused by human beings that definitely need fixing. But you have to weigh the benefits of fixing it against the consequences in a rational manner.
The two different axes for the Moon are still there, if one of them had “vanished” when the Moon became tidally locked it wouldn’t be in wiki.
It’s still there.
The axis the Moon rotates around.
It’s still there.
The axis the Moon revolves around.
Both of them.
They are still there.
bobdroege says:
The two different axes for the Moon are still there, if one of them had vanished when the Moon became tidally locked it wouldnt be in wiki.
Its still there.
The axis the Moon rotates around.
Its still there.
The axis the Moon revolves around.
Both of them.
They are still there.
================================
Nope they both aren’t there.
You simply have in your mind constructed an axis that has no particles rotating around it in concentric paths.
The earth has two axes. One in the center of the sun and one in the center of the earth. It just happens earths orbital axis is close to perpendicular to its orbital rotation because the orbit is close to parallel to the centripetal force. But one should not extrapolate that as a rule to all orbits.
Orbital rotations are perpendicular to the centripetal force not the tilt of the orbit. `
Your point of view would have the earth rotating on two axes at the same time violating everything known about rotation.
It would be like trying to roast an apple on two shish kabob skewers locked into separate rotisserie motors at the same time.
All you would end up with would be most of the apple in the charcoal pit.
IMO once you guys get enough evidence to prove that the moon rotates on its own axis you will have proven the earth orbits the moon also.
So be real careful with your proofs. It seems 99% of the posts miss the argument of the non-spinner.
We recognize that the moon rotates from the perspective of the stars and have no denial of that.
We simply point to the real place that chalked circles rotate upon.
The only way to have synchronous rotation with orbital motion is for that rotation to occur on the axis of the body providing the centripetal force.
So one can define synchronous rotation as rotation on the axis of another body.
For all those folks out there that believe synchronous rotation is rotation on an internal axis of the rotating body should just go off and play with chalked circles on the mgr in their local park and explain it to folks in the park from a soap box. Who knows how large your cult might get.
hunter
” thats how science works. ”
No, hunter. That is NOT how science works.
The way how science works is scientific contradiction based on the analysis of the work of others, and on a valuable proof they were wrong.
For example, Lagrange was given a price by the Academy of Sciences in Paris as he gave a mathematical proof that Moon’s optical, apparent libration in longitude was due to a combination of
– its rotation about its center of mass being equal in time to its orbiting around Earth
and
– the fact that all celestial bodies orbit on ellipses
what in the sum leads to an apparent wobbling of the Moon.
He was even able to compute the wobbling’s extent and came to the same result as what observed at that time.
A scientific contradiction, hunter, would be
– to detect mathematical flaws in Lagrange’s demonstration
and
– to offer an alternative, mathematically correct demonstration.
That’s how science works, hunter.
You, ClintR, Pseudomod and Robertson, you all are lightyears away from doing that.
You are just playing with toys, like do stubborn children.
J.-P. D.
All that is required is to be able to mentally add two motions together; and to realize when only one of those motions is occurring, as is the case with our moon.
Bindidon says:
A scientific contradiction, hunter, would be
to detect mathematical flaws in Lagranges demonstration
and
to offer an alternative, mathematically correct demonstration.
Thats how science works, hunter.
==============================
thats what you don’t get Bindidon. I don’t dispute Lagrange’s demonstration because I can repeat his experiment recognizing that the moon rotates around the earth’s COG instead.
That fact doesn’t change the outcome of Lagranges work and you just don’t get that. . . probably because you are just parroting Lagrange’s conclusion and you don’t understand the process he used to arrive at the conclusion. His work is absolutely able to be transposed onto the spin rate around the axis going through earths COG without adjustment.
Note the words “in equal time” if it were a different time one would have to find the difference. . . .and if it were not in equal time we would see all sides of the moon from earth periodically in exact time with that difference namely an independent rate of spin on the axis of the moon.
What you need to come to grips with is that a planet like uranus is simultaneously spinning on two axes placed nearly perpendicular to each other. The likelihood of anything spinning on its own axis at precisely the same angle it rotates around on going around the sun (or whatever it orbits around) is highly unlikely in the universe. Lunar theory as outlined by a reference I provided here ”william ward- Tidal friction and generalized Cassinis laws in the solar system” explains how the current tilt of the moon was arrived at by the forces of gravity that creates its orbit and tidal locking. . . .using the laws of Cassini.
So the case is always two axes for independently spinning on their axis while orbiting heavenly bodies orbiting other heavenly bodies. You can see that on earth as the earth goes around the sun on one axis and spins on another, the revolution around the sun creates the seasons on one axis and the revolution of the earth around its axis creates the days on the earths own axis.
When a body becomes tidal locked one axis goes away. The process of that going away may or may not have some affect on the other axis but it is believed at a minimum to have an effect on the orbit. I believe those suppositions are arrived at mathematically as angular momentum is conserved (or maybe better characterized as eaten) by the forces of the larger body and expressed via orbital variation. Uranus is the best example but the earth, mars, saturn, neptune, and pluto all have significant obliquity for their spin on those axes versus their axes for their rotation around the sun. . . .which is never expressed as an axis of the planet because its not.
See thats another proof of the non-spinner position. . . more than one axis for all the planets and non-tidal locked moons. And the fact if there were only one axis for the earth’s rotation we would not have seasons.
the inculcated around here wear blinders as their tendency toward rote learning vs understanding blinds them to reality. It’s not stupidity as somebody can choose to learn by understanding as opposed to rote, it just takes a bit more desire and scorn of authority.
“I can repeat his experiment recognizing that the moon rotates around the earth’s COG instead.”
That would be revolve bill (external axis), try to get the lingo straight. See DREMT’s source definitions to learn & try to remember what you learnt. Madhavi Fig. 1 fig. on right teaches rotation.
hunter
” … because I can repeat his experiment recognizing that the moon rotates around the earths COG instead. ”
You are such a ridiculous, pretentious, cowardy boaster, hunter.
Never and never would you ever be able to repeat Lagrange’s work. And you know that.
J.-P. D.
All that is required is to be able to mentally add two motions together; and to realize when only one of those motions is occurring, as is the case with our moon.
DREMT 6:43pm means only if you look at a chalk circle that spins once on its axis and call that chalk circle non-spinning once on its axis. It helps to keep your eyes closed for such a demonstration.
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
Those who want to believe a chalk circle drawn at the edge of the platform on a merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis, rather than simply rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, are beyond help. It is physically impossible for it to rotate on its own axis.
It is physically impossible for it to rotate on its own axis more or less than once.
Ball4 says:
That would be revolve bill (external axis), try to get the lingo straight. See DREMT’s source definitions to learn & try to remember what you learnt. Madhavi Fig. 1 fig. on right teaches rotation.
============================
Stop being so ignorant Ball4. Before stuffing words in Madhavi’s mouth simply read what she said:
”plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation”
If you actually checked your sources you wouldn’t look nearly as stupid as you do.
I’m in agreement with Madhavi text.
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1).”
“the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.” illustrated in Fig. 1 object on right.
According to DREMT, the plate in Fig. 2(b) is non-spinning (NOT in rotation) while it revolves around O so go argue with DREMT.
ball4…”According to DREMT, the plate in Fig. 2(b) is non-spinning (NOT in rotation) while it revolves around O so go argue with DREMT”.
The text makes it clear that fig 2(b) is curvilinear translation and not rotation. There is no ‘O’ for it to revolve around.
Gordon as per standard practice doesn’t quote an author, Madhavi text:
“Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation”
not Fig. 2(b).
Bindidon says:
because I can repeat his experiment recognizing that the moon rotates around the earths COG instead.
You are such a ridiculous, pretentious, cowardy boaster, hunter.
Never and never would you ever be able to repeat Lagranges work. And you know that.
J.-P. D.
===========================
If I and others could not repeat it then its wrong.
“According to DREMT, the plate in Fig. 2(b) is non-spinning (NOT in rotation) while it revolves around O so go argue with DREMT.”
The plate in Fig. 2(b) is in rotation about point O. It physically cannot rotate about its own cm, due to the rigid rod connecting it to point O.
““the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.” illustrated in Fig. 1 object on right.”
No, Ball4, it is illustrated in Fig 2(b)…where they draw out part of the concentric circles! All the particles of the plate shown in Fig 2(b) are moving in concentric circles about point O, as illustrated in Fig 2(b). Just as all the moon’s particles are moving in concentric circles/ellipses about the Earth/moon barycenter. If the moon were rotating on its own axis, the paths of the particles would cross.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
“The plate in Fig. 2(b) is in rotation about point O.”
That would be revolve, DREMT, according to your own source you again botch the def. of rotation.
The plate physically rotates once about its own cm, due to the rigid rod connecting it to point O per Madhavi Fig. 2(b) “rotation” each revolution about O.
a+b
All the particles of the plate shown in Fig 2(b) are revolving in concentric circles about point O, as illustrated in Fig 2(b) as well rotating in concentric circles Fig. 1 once per revolution or the circles would cross. Open your eyes DREMT.
a+b
If the moon were rotating on its own axis more or less than once per revolution, the paths of the particles would cross which is impossible.
a+b
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
Ball4, revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis. You are arguing semantics. All that is happening in Fig. 2(b) is that every particle of the plate is moving in concentric circles about point O. That is it. One single motion, a. Not a + b. Just a.
B Hunter (et al.), All the “non-spinner” BS, including your post, ignore the facts from observations which point to a rotating Moon. A basic search on the ‘Net provides much insight and data, particularly that derived from NASA and Russian lunar orbiting satellites. NASA accepts the result from astronomy that the Moon rotates about an axis which is not perpendicular to the Moon’s orbit plane and the geographic placement of the Moon’s equator is defined by that axis. Satellites which orbit the Moon are designed using orbital elements, particularly inclination, relative to that Equator and many missions which do so provide solid proof that the Moon rotates.
The Moon is very nearly spherical, so there’s no apparent reason to pick an axis, except for the measurements which indicate angular rotation. Interestingly, there are massive gravitational anomalies within the Moon which perturb low altitude Lunar orbits, discoveries which add further evidence to the basic scientific understanding of the Moon and it’s motions.
You and the other “non-spinners” are arguing against NASA and the other international space nations, as well as long established astronomical understanding. You can call it “appeal to authority”, but they’ve been there and back and you all haven’t.
DREMT, use your eyes, all that is happening in Fig. 2(a) is that every particle of the plate is moving in concentric circles about the axis of revolution. That is it. One single motion, a. Not a + b. Just a. Zero rotation about an internal plate axis so Fig. 2(a) is just “translation”.
a+0
Then in Fig. 2(b) “rotation” Madhavi illustrates adding rotation (defined Fig. 1) about internal plate axis to the plate already revolving about external axis through O.
a+b
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
non-spinners (DREMT term) “ignore the facts from observations”
Yes, E. Swanson the non-spinners (DREMT term) observe an object (ball, chalk circle, LP, moon) that rotates once on its internal axis per revolution of an external axis and simply write or announce or dictate that object did NOT rotate (or spin) once on its internal axis.
The non-spinners (DREMT term) refuse to believe their own eyes, fail the lab course videos, and the fail the lecture material.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter (et al.), All the non-spinner BS, including your post, ignore the facts from observations which point to a rotating Moon. A basic search on the Net provides much insight and data, particularly that derived from NASA and Russian lunar orbiting satellites. NASA accepts the result from astronomy that the Moon rotates about an axis which is not perpendicular to the Moons orbit plane and the geographic placement of the Moons equator is defined by that axis. Satellites which orbit the Moon are designed using orbital elements, particularly inclination, relative to that Equator and many missions which do so provide solid proof that the Moon rotates.
==============================
if you have evidence you should present it. . . . not just claim it exists.
the moon is tilted because its orbit is tilted with respect to the earth/sun eciptical plane. thus tidal locking forces keep the moon relatively stationary with respect to that field effectively tilting the orbital axis to align with the rules/definition/facts of rotation of moving about concentric orbits of each and every particle of the moon.
If one plots visits to the moon and selects to utilize the idea that the moon is rotating on its own axis instead of rotating on an axis penetrating the COG of earth, it doesn’t change any navigational calculations as the space craft navigating around the moon must account for the rotation of the moon about the earth. Navigating the surface of a mgr with a chalked circle on it doesn’t change even if you believe the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis. What you have to account for both on the mgr and going to the moon is the coriolis effect of moving out from the earth/mgrcenter to the orbiting object/chalk circle. Both the particles of the moon and the particles of the chalk circle do not move in relationship to each other. The specification of rotating on its own axis with an internal axis is the particles on the axis don’t move while the other particles move about it. The moon’s particles move in lockstep with the other particles with an entire arc of particles crossing the moon on the orbital curve through the center of the moon are moving at an identical rate in respect to each other. Its not an rotation on that internal axis when that occurs. But the axis at the center of the orbit doesn’t move while all the particles of the moon move about it. . . . like a ball on a string.
I also like the two rotational axes argument. All objects in our solar system that are not tidal locked, have two different axes at different angles relative to the sun or ecliptics of sun/planets for moons. One axis determine seasons and is unique in having only one rotation per orbit.
The other axis at a different angle defines days. When becoming tidal locked that axis vanishes. Its not simply a matter of rotations on that axis being reduced to one.(a+b) Its a matter of reducing rotations on that axis to zero.(a)
“if you have evidence you should present it…not just claim it exists.”
See Svante 12:08am: “Delivered with a nice smile from Tim Peake:”
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
“When becoming tidal locked that axis vanishes. It’s not simply a matter of rotations on that axis being reduced to one.(a+b) Its a matter of reducing rotations on that axis to zero.(a)”
When the moon revolving about earth on external axis became tidally locked it reduced its many rotations on internal axis per orbit to 1 not zero per orbit of earth.
a+b
If the moon revolving about earth on external axis reduced its rotations on internal axis per orbit to zero, then the moon would be staring at the same distant galaxy (like Hubble) and showing all sides to earth.
a+0
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
Ball4 says:
if you have evidence you should present itnot just claim it exists.
See Svante 12:08am: Delivered with a nice smile from Tim Peake:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
==================================
What happens when an object enters and orbit and exits an orbit really doesn’t apply to this discussion. We are only discussing something within an orbit. If there is a connection its not revealed by the link.
If what you are implying is that there is an angular momentum that conserved, well there is angular momentum associated with orbiting bodies as well as non-orbiting bodies. All you are doing is using that property to suggest incorrectly, and without evidence, where the axis of that rotation is.
=====================
=====================
Ball4 says:
When becoming tidal locked that axis vanishes. Its not simply a matter of rotations on that axis being reduced to one.(a+b) Its a matter of reducing rotations on that axis to zero.(a)
When the moon revolving about earth on external axis became tidally locked it reduced its many rotations on internal axis per orbit to 1 not zero per orbit of earth.
a+b
================================
a = rotation on the orbital plane axis at angleA
b = rotation on internal axis at angleB
When an object becomes tidal locked all the rotations around angleB vanish and you are left with the rotation on angleA only.
You are just hopelessly confused.
=========================
=========================
Ball4 ignorantly claims without evidence:
If the moon revolving about earth on external axis reduced its rotations on internal axis per orbit to zero, then the moon would be staring at the same distant galaxy (like Hubble) and showing all sides to earth.
a+0
===========================
Nope, to make the apparent rotation on the moon’s central axis (enabled only by ignoring the ball on a string rotation tied by gravity to the earth’s COG) disappear you have to add a rotation in the opposite direction on the same angleA as the orbital revolution axis.
add that rotation to any axis angled differently then the object will appear to have those two different rotations as the earth appears and every other non-tidal locked object in the solar system appears.
All of the evidence and all of the logic supports the non-spinner position. Spinners must resort to contorted and unlikely relationships to hide the difference in the types of spins. . . .1) orbital dependent spin at Angle A, and 2) independent spin on an internal axis at Angle B
So a+b becomes a+b(with b=0) or a+0 or a when internal spin goes to zero.
Evidence for axis of rotation: there is angular momentum associated with orbiting bodies Fig. 2(a) as well as non-orbiting bodies Fig. 1 object on right.
—–
“a = rotation on the orbital plane axis at angleA”
Here bill, as DREMT, provides evidence of botching the def. of rotation, that is revolution “a” about external axis Fig. 2(a) in which the plate only translates; the plate only revolves does not rotate on internal axis in Fig. 2(a). a+0
“to make the apparent rotation on the moon’s central axis (enabled only by ignoring the ball on a string rotation tied by gravity to the earths COG) disappear you have to add a rotation in the opposite direction”
Bill really has to twist the pretzel. The moon with no rotation about internal axis simply revolves about the external orbital axis as in Fig. 2(a) “translation”. Add rotation to the plate, get Fig. 2(b) “rotation” added to revolution about O. a+b
Revolving no spinning:
a+0
Revolving and spinning:
a+b
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
Ball4 says:
Evidence for axis of rotation: there is angular momentum associated with orbiting bodies Fig. 2(a) as well as non-orbiting bodies Fig. 1 object on right.
a = rotation on the orbital plane axis at angleA
Here bill, as DREMT, provides evidence of botching the def. of rotation, that is revolution a about external axis Fig. 2(a) in which the plate only translates; the plate only revolves does not rotate on internal axis in Fig. 2(a). a+0
==================
==================
Incorrect the rectangular plate (like the circular plate the moon would represent, rotates around Fixed point 0) per Madhavi.
You simply that claim the moon additional rotates around a second axis (which is consistent with Madhavi later in her course of dealing with two axes of rotation) but before she gets there she wants to be sure you don’t make the mistake you are making and you just don’t get what she is teaching you thus you get an F in the course. . . .uh . . . .maybe a D for effort though.
The rectangular plate (like the circular plate the moon would represent, revolves around Fixed point 0 per Madhavi, DREMT source: “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.”
Fig. 2(a) revolving without spin & Fig. 2(b) revolving with spin.
“You simply that claim” I make no additional claim, I agree with Madhavi & DREMT source and so should bill.
No, Ball4, the particles of the rectangle in Fig. 2(a) are moving in parallel circles, as Madhavi notes. The particles of the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) are moving in concentric circles about point O. One motion, a. Not a + b. Just a.
The particles of the rectangle in Fig. 2(a) are moving in parallel circles “in curvilinear translation”, as Madhavi notes so NO spin. One motion, a in Fig(a). Not a + b. Just a. Revolution. The particles of the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) are “in rotation” moving in concentric circles while revolving about point O. Two motions in Fig. 2(b) “in rotation” and “curvilinear translation” revolution about O. b+a.
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
The definition of revolve, again:
“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.”
Which diagram represents motion as per a ball on a string? Fig. 2(b)
So which diagram represents “revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit”? Fig. 2(b)
The non-spinner position is Fig. 2(a) no spin just translation. The plate presents all faces to its orbital axis unlike the moon.
The non-spinners botch rotation for revolution: “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.”
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
“Which diagram represents motion as per a ball on a string? Fig. 2(b)”
Yes. Two motions, revolution a about O & open your eyes, spin b once on its cm axis per orbit like the 2(b) plate “in rotation” as Madhavi notes. Presents same face to O, like moon.
a+b
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
Which diagram represents motion as per a ball on a string? Fig. 2(b)
So which diagram represents “revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit”? Fig. 2(b)
…by definition!
Ball4 botches the definition of revolution, cannot add two motions together correctly, and is unaware of when only one motion is occurring.
So which diagram represents “revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit”? Fig. 2(a) no spin, just translation which is the non-spinner position. The plate presents all faces to the center unlike the moon. So non-spinners are wrong about the moon.
If the non-spinner position really is Fig. 2(b) then they really have two motions plate “rotation” noted by Madhavi and revolution about O. Presents same face to O like the moon.
a+b
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
Ball4 clearly cannot separate axial rotation from revolution.
Fig. 2(b) represents “revolution with zero axial rotations per orbit”.
Axial rotation is then separate and independent of that motion.
That is the non-spinner position.
B Hunter wrote:
Sure it does. All spacecraft motions are ellipses and the tilt in the Moon’s axis may require a different ellipse than one which ends in an orbit within the Moon’s orbital plane. Get your terminology correct, the Moon “revolves” around the Earth as it orbits, it doesn’t “rotate”.
Then, Hunter wrote:
There’s no compensation required, just the calculation of a new orbit between point A and point B. The Coriolis Effect is the result of the rotation of the Earth WRT the stars.
Hunter continues:
You all continue to claim that the Moon rotates as if all the particles within follow concentric “orbits” within the orbital plane defined by the motion of the Moon’s CM. But, evidence abounds that the Moon’s motion is a rotation about an axis and that said axis is tilted WRT the Moon’s orbital plane. For this to be occur, the tangential velocity vectors at the Moon’s equator facing (and opposite) the Earth will seldom lie within said orbital plane. Thus, the MGR/chalk circle model fails.
DREMT 12:21pm is forced to claim Madhavi Fig. 2(b) “rotation” is not “rotation”.
The non-spinner position remains wrong about the moon.
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
“DREMT 12:21pm is forced to claim Madhavi Fig. 2(b) “rotation” is not “rotation”.”
Semantics. Revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis. The rectangle in 2(b) is revolving about point O hence another way of saying it is that it’s rotating about point O.
Alert 100’s of strawmen being build by Ball4.
Ball4 wants both a revolution and a rotation and to achieve it he stuffs the word revolution in the mouth of the scientific source, Madhavi.
But Madhavi never uses the word revolves or revolution in her entire paper.
The dictionary makes revolve and rotate synonymous. There is no such thing as a revolution being a separate entity from rotation its entirely an election to characterize an orbital rotation as a revolution and an independent rotation on an axis of a different angle a rotation to distinguish which axis a revolution or rotation spins on but nothing more
So I can buy into it revolutions equals a rotation of an orbiting body. and rotation equals an independent rotation of a celestial body on its own axis. But when you start trying to make a scientific law out of it you just nuts.
Thus a+b=2 or more rotations per orbit on 2 different axes; a=1 rotation per orbit on one axis.
DREMT is now forced to try to claim “Revolution is just another word for rotation”.
If so DREMT’s 12:21pm claim now turns into: Fig. 2(b) represents rotation with zero axial rotations per orbit.
So we now have the non-spinner position as rotation without rotation. Which seems about right, the non-spinners observe spin and just reword it to non-spin.
Non-spinners are more entertaining than a 3-ring circus.
bill: “Madhavi never uses the word revolves or revolution in her entire paper.”
Correct bill. DREMT introduced us to the source for what are rotation and revolution, then writes: “Revolution is just another word for rotation” gutting DREMT’s own source.
According to DREMT, the non-spinners position has become rotation without rotation.
What a circus.
What I actually said was, “revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis”, but Ball4 is unable to debate honestly, as we know. The Non-Spinner position is thus “Fig. 2(b) represents rotation about an external axis with zero axial rotations per orbit”.
bill, Madhavi/DREMT source are trying to simplify your pretzel for you:
Fig. 2(a) revolving without spin & Fig. 2(b) revolving with spin.
—–
Illustrations of Madhavi agree with DREMT source: “When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin”
“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.”
DREMT 2:21pm now further claims: “Fig. 2(b) represents “rotation about an external axis with zero axial rotations per orbit””
two axes! External and axial.
where DREMT used to claim only one axis “A ball on a string has only one axis” presumably thru the external center point so this is a bit of important progress on DREMT’s part in this debate.
Now that DREMT agrees there are two axes (external and axial) for the plate (or ball), the problem now for DREMT has progressed to become understanding the zero-axial rotation of the plate (or ball) per revolution really is illustrated in Fig. 2(a) and 1 axial rotation of the plate (or ball) per revolution really is illustrated in Fig. 2(b) i.e.:
Fig. 2(a) revolving on external axis without axial spin & Fig. 2(b) revolving on external axis with axial spin.
Section 3 figure 6 should be referred to when discussing rotation, though you must realize both of the axes with respect to the Moons rotation and revolution are not fixed.
ball4…”not Fig. 2(b)”
Sorry. You’re right, I was looking at 1(b).
“e other axis at a different angle defines days. When becoming tidal locked that axis vanishes.”
Shocking, another made up faux fact by Bill.
The fact that orbital parameters of the Moon show an axial tilt, proves you wrong. The axis hasnt vanished, except in your hopes and dreams.
Nate says:
June 14, 2020 at 6:06 PM
e other axis at a different angle defines days. When becoming tidal locked that axis vanishes.
Shocking, another made up faux fact by Bill.
The fact that orbital parameters of the Moon show an axial tilt, proves you wrong. The axis hasnt vanished, except in your hopes and dreams.
===============================
Quite simply Nate you are confounding the axis of the moons long gone spin with the current axis perpendicular to the centripetal force of the earth/sun combination (tide). There is no axis perpendicular to orbital path because no particles are rotating around that axis is concentric paths. You just imagine an axis that has no analog in the universe.
2 kinds of axes
1. at the center of a body with an existing spin that exists solely on the basis of angular momentum of a previous force no longer being applied.
and
2. an axis through the COG of another object(s) exerting an existing force (tides) on an orbiting object.
You see an imaginary axis perpendicular to the orbital path that lacks a definition suitable for rotation. In essence you are believing the orbital path exerts a centripetal force on the moon and thus the axis should be perpendicular to the orbital path. Absurd of course there is no connection between orbital paths and rotation.
the earth is a perfect example of rotation on two axes and the moon is an excellent example of rotation on one axis.
“In essence you are believing the orbital path exerts a centripetal force on the moon and thus the axis should be perpendicular to the orbital path. Absurd of course there is no connection between orbital paths and rotation.”
Really, I dont believe I am believing something so nutty. Where do you get these insanities?
Why do you refuse to accept real physics and astronomy, and instead make up batshit crazy stuff like this?
Fact: the Moon has two defined axes. One of them is tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the other.
You cannot change this fact, and substitute your own unless you live in a different universe, or the loony bin.
The axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees points at fixed star positions during the orbit. It defines the NS poles.
Even you agreed that mass moves in circles around such an axis, and that defines the axis. That makes it the rotational axis of the Moon.
The other is the orbital axis. Look it up.
These are facts. You cannot substitute your own batshit crazy ones.
Nate says:
In essence you are believing the orbital path exerts a centripetal force on the moon and thus the axis should be perpendicular to the orbital path. Absurd of course there is no connection between orbital paths and rotation.
Really, I dont believe I am believing something so nutty. Where do you get these insanities?
=====================================
By looking at the earth’s seasonal rotation on an axis in the middle of the Sun’s COG Nate.
Nate you just get diaper rash over anything you hear in here that your dada hasn’t told you its OK to endorse.
A more productive approach would be to just make an argument for why gravity should not have anything to do with an objects orientation to the sun.
Very clearly when there is independent spin there are other phenomena that are being created like seasons as well as days.
Seasons are only created when an objects rotation on its own internal axis has a different angle than the rotation of the object around the sun. The moon has no seasons but the earth does. Its easy to see why. The earth rotates around an annual axis through the sun’s COG that has a different tilt than the earth’s rotation around its own axis.
Its all determined by gravity.
========================
========================
Nate says:
Why do you refuse to accept real physics and astronomy, and instead make up batshit crazy stuff like this?
Fact: the Moon has two defined axes. One of them is tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the other.
You cannot change this fact, and substitute your own unless you live in a different universe, or the loony bin.
The axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees points at fixed star positions during the orbit. It defines the NS poles.
==================================
Source please. You need to distinguish that statement either from a source or a logical argument consistent with what we know to exist.
My argument is based upon gravity pulling at the center of objects. What is your argument for an orbital axis divergent from the pull of gravity? Have none?
============================
============================
Nate claims:
Even you agreed that mass moves in circles around such an axis, and that defines the axis. That makes it the rotational axis of the Moon.
The other is the orbital axis. Look it up.
These are facts. You cannot substitute your own batshit crazy ones.
============================
Near as I can tell Nate the middle of a plane (they taught me this in elementary school I believe) that planes had no thickness therefore the middle of a plane is point, not a line.
And near as I can tell there is nothing else unique about an orbital plane that could define a line. And orbital plane has no mass therefore no gravity.
However, the COG of earth has exerts a centripetal force on the moon and that force is on all parts of the moon thus extending a line through the earth to match up to the forces of gravity working on the moon.
If there were no sun then that line like earth’s would be also perpendicular to the orbital plane. But because the sun also exerts force on the moon the gravity of the sun adds to the earths gravity with the center of the power being the ecliptic.
Perhaps a little too complex for you to understand.
Finally if you want to actually make that seeming perfectly logical explanation sound bat shit crazy I think you have to come up with a sane argument in your own right or defer to somebody who has the ability to come up with a sane argument in opposition.
Just calling it bat shit crazy isn’t an argument.
The point that passes high over Nate’s head is no matter how hard you try you cannot explain the earth’s daily and seasonal/annual rotation on the same axis. The reason is you clearly have two rotations remote from each other (sidereal from the perspective of space for earth 366 sidereal days of starshine)
But from the earth its 365 rotations on the earth’s own axis and one rotation on an axis that goes through the sun at a 23.5 degree angle to the earth’s own axis.
Bingo another consistency in favor of orbits having a different axes. It simply doesn’t make sense, from what we currently know, that the earth could spin down to one last rotation on its own axis leaving the only remaining rotation on a different axis.
I have lost count of the physical and logical arguments for the non-spinner position but do notice the arguments for the spinner position still only amounts to words and not legitimate arguments.
“do notice the arguments for the spinner position still only amounts to words and not legitimate arguments.”
bill has then skipped the videos, the astronomical ref.s,, and the texts with logical, legitimate arguments demonstrating the spinner position. Nate has not skipped all those, while imagined argument is bill’s entire case.
Ball4 says:
June 15, 2020 at 8:44 PM
do notice the arguments for the spinner position still only amounts to words and not legitimate arguments.
bill has then skipped the videos, the astronomical ref.s,, and the texts with logical, legitimate arguments demonstrating the spinner position. Nate has not skipped all those, while imagined argument is bills entire case.
============================
Gee Ball4 one link to one of those posts would suffice don’t you think. Or are you going to argue for their existence the same way you offer up the spinner argument?
“one link to one of those posts would suffice”
No. You need many more than one. Imagination is the easy way, bill. YOU have to do the work. Hints: 1) the page is searchable, 2) google is your friend as well as the local college library astronomical collection.
OK Ball4 I will accept that as an answer that you can’t find a single good argument for your point of view among the nearly 4,000 post here.
Neither did I. So I am not surprised.
“Very clearly when there is independent spin there are other phenomena that are being created like” libration.
https://www.wwu.edu/planetarium/a101/a101_lunarlibration.shtml
“Libration of longitude is an effect of the Moon’s varying rate of travel along its slightly elliptical orbit around the Earth. The Moon travels faster when it is at its closest to Earth, and its slowest when it is farthest away. Its rotation on its own axis is more regular, the difference appearing again as a slight east-west “no” oscillation.”
wiki-libration
“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. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s revolution about the Sun. Galileo Galilei is sometimes credited with the discovery of the lunar libration in latitude in 1632,[2] although Thomas Harriot or William Gilbert could have done so before.[4] Note Cassini’s laws. It can reach 650′ in amplitude.[3]”
wiki Axial_tilt
“In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.[1] It differs from orbital inclination.”
“Moon 6.68 ”
These are the facts, as found everywhere.
Bill,
Above facts in response to your request:
“Source please. You need to distinguish that statement either from a source or a logical argument consistent with what we know to exist.”
You cannot change these facts, and substitute your own unless you live in a different universe, or the loony bin.
bill 12:36am, yes, remaining uneducated in the subject is your privilege thus bill’s credibility will remain low. Remember all of DREMT’s astronomical sources posted disagreed with DREMT who couldn’t find even one in agreement. I see you aren’t up to the task of finding an astronomical source to agree with bill either.
All astronomical sources I have found agree with me on how revolution is defined. Still waiting on a source which backs the Spinners up on that. You are looking for something which defines revolution as per the moon on the right from the link further down. Good luck with that.
Ha ha…If you’re counting on astronomical references to help you, you’re way out of luck.
“All astronomical sources I have found agree with” spinners that the moon is rotating on its own axis. Here are just 3 examples from the above post:
“The Moon travels faster when it is at its closest to Earth, and its slowest when it is farthest away. Its rotation on its own axis is more regular, the difference appearing again as a slight east-west ‘no’ oscillation.”
“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.”
“In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis”
“Object Obliquity (deg)
Moon 6.67”
#2
All astronomical sources I have found agree with me on how revolution is defined. Still waiting on a source which backs the Spinners up on that. You are looking for something which defines revolution as per the moon on the right from the link further down. Good luck with that.
Nate says:
””Very clearly when there is independent spin there are other phenomena that are being created like” libration.
”Libration of longitude is an effect of the Moons varying rate of travel along its slightly elliptical orbit around the Earth. The Moon travels faster when it is at its closest to Earth, and its slowest when it is farthest away. Its rotation on its own axis is more regular, the difference appearing again as a slight east-west no oscillation.”
====================================
Its amazing you are so totally ignorant about the reason Nate. Kepler worked out how elliptical orbits are the rule and a circular orbit is a special case.
Orbiting bodies are subject to other forces and different initial conditions when becoming captured in orbit. These forces and initial conditions simply have no measurable effect on the direction a tidal locked moon is facing. consider it as something analogous to a stretching. You know a stretching exactly like what brings about tidal locking in the first place.
==========
==========
Nate says:
wiki-libration
Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moons axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earths revolution about the Sun. Galileo Galilei is sometimes credited with the discovery of the lunar libration in latitude in 1632,[2] although Thomas Harriot or William Gilbert could have done so before.[4] Note Cassinis laws. It can reach 650′ in amplitude.[3]
====================
”Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earths revolution about the Sun”
Another wiki boner. rather loosely analogous as the moon doesn’t have seasons precisely because the moon is hardly tilted at all in relationship to the ecliptic plane.
===========
===========
Nate says:
wiki Axial_tilt
In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an objects rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.[1] It differs from orbital inclination.
Moon 6.68
These are the facts, as found everywhere.
============================
So none of those facts demonstrate the axis that the moon rotates upon. You are just throwing mudballs at the wall hoping something sticks. You need to make a case for why any of that specifies where an axis is.
============
============
Nate says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:38 AM
Bill,
Above facts in response to your request:
Source please. You need to distinguish that statement either from a source or a logical argument consistent with what we know to exist.
You cannot change these facts, and substitute your own unless you live in a different universe, or the loony bin.
=========================
How do you define a fact? Must be different than mine. Facts are based upon logical arguments and experimentation. You have demonstrated neither in any of your arguments nor any of your sources. Non-spinners have provided definitions, engineering evidence, logical arguments that say the moon can’t be spinning on its own axis and showing the same face to an object unless its orbiting around the moon. Spinners merely quote words without arguments and appeal to authority.
Which do you consider science?
Nate says:
Source please. You need to distinguish that statement either from a source or a logical argument consistent with what we know to exist.
You cannot change these facts, and substitute your own unless you live in a different universe, or the loony bin.
==============================
Nate announces to the world he has no sources nor argument to support his opinion just what he calls facts he makes up in his own head as being relevant to the question at hand.
OK, so EVEN when the facts are properly sourced as requested by Bill, they DO NOT MATTER.
Even when various astronomical sources clearly indicate that the Moon has an internal axis of rotation (spin), and that explains both logitudianl and latitudinal Libration, and the need for observable parameters like obliquity, axial tilt, polar coordinates, axial precession. These are FACTS that are found in numerous astronomical tables and sources.
Let the record show that for Bill and DREMT, facts are irrelevant to their beliefs.
Their beliefs are not falsifiable, thus are compatible with religion but not science.
Ball4 says:
bill 12:36am, yes, remaining uneducated in the subject is your privilege thus bills credibility will remain low. Remember all of DREMTs astronomical sources posted disagreed with DREMT who couldnt find even one in agreement. I see you arent up to the task of finding an astronomical source to agree with bill either.
==================================
Ball4 falls back to a generic appeal to authority and a use of words by authoritative persons contrary to all definitions provided.
I could see how an person in authority could misuse a word that has no study behind its provenance. Nor any definition in support of its actual meaning. Where all definitions so far provided have been in support of the non-spinner position.
As DREMT pointed out to make an argument that doesn’t fail on its own merits; one has to produce evidence, a logical argument, or an explicit definition of a word usage. None of which the spinners have provided. Illogical and fallacious arguments such as appeals to authority, or stuff contrary to logic cannot apply as evidence.
Fact is that when scientists speak just like everybody else speaks, in the absence of relevance to their area of expertise, they automatically spew out their perspective of something.
Doesn’t matter if its real or not. In the case of the non-spinner argument, however, it goes far beyond perspective (which is as true a perspective as any). Its also supported by logic, definitions, and engineering.
But you can’t seem to offer any of that at all. Nate keeps talking about non-rotational visual effects, shapes of orbits, variances of perspective but the problem with all that is all that is common to all rotations to some degree or other.
Your belief that’s not true is entirely coupled to your textbook inculcation arising out of ‘ideal’ descriptions of perfect spheres, perfectly circular orbits, perfectly even rotation. . . .a whole variety of perfections that simply don’t occur in the world. Like ‘fixed’ to the stars. Fixed by what? By a lack of time and visible variation. We have the ability today to actually measure that nothing is fixed to the stars but we still use the concept in navigation and other things because the errors are small enough to ignore.
Rotation on its own axis appears to be just another one of those imprecise concepts that hangs on because its convenient and not relevant to what anybody is doing in astronomy.
It just becomes relevant when you start trying to figure out how to construct universes as it became relevant in engineering where engineers build countless things that actually depend on getting the axis in the right place.
thats just one of the reasons you can’t just appeal to authority some stuff nobody really cares about, except a bunch of morons who think they know it all and hang out for 4,000 posts trying to prove something that all logic opposes.
“Rotation on its own axis appears to be just another one of those imprecise concepts that hangs on because its convenient and not relevant to what anybody is doing in astronomy.”
Not relevant in Astronomy??? Huh?
Bizarre.
” as it became relevant in engineering where engineers build countless things that actually depend on getting the axis in the right place.”
Sure, and no rift has been uncovered between engineers and physicists and astronomers, despite your efforts to invent one.
It turns out to be very convenient for engineers programming 3D printers, XY plotters, factory robots, to use the same conventions as astronomy. They describe motion as translation or rotation in an inertial reference frame.
” appeals to authority” “inculcation”
Bill doesnt believe me, asks for sources of my facts.
When I provide them, he accuses me of appealing to authority, and being inculcated.
Classy guy.
Nate says:
appeals to authority inculcation
Bill doesnt believe me, asks for sources of my facts.
When I provide them, he accuses me of appealing to authority, and being inculcated.
Classy guy.
============================================
Nate your argument boils down to a claim that only internal axes can exhibit tilts, librations, and precessions for which you provide neither logical argument nor any evidence. since none of those things are established as unique to internal rotations simply saying they exist, which i agree they do, isnt proof of the moon spinning on its own axis
“bill, Madhavi/DREMT source are trying to simplify your pretzel for you:
Fig. 2(a) revolving without spin & Fig. 2(b) revolving with spin.”
We all understand that’s the way you see it, Ball4. But the diagrams are not labelled that way. You don’t need to keep repeating the Spinner position though, it is childishly simple to understand. Now try seeing it the Non-Spinner way. Can you do that?
“Now try seeing it the Non-Spinner way. Can you do that?”
Non-spinner way:
“Fig. 2(b) represents rotation about an external axis with zero axial rotations per orbit”
which remains wrong, that motion is Fig. 2(a). But at least DREMT now realizes there are two axes (external and axial) in Fig. 2(b). DREMT’s axial is also labeled “internal to the object” by DREMT source on revolution and rotation.
Ball4 you are either obfuscating or you are the dumbest SOB I have ever seen on a science blog.
So, inquisitive bill wanting evidence paints an arrow thru the plate cm pointing N (up) on both the Madhavi plates.
In Fig. 2(a) the arrow always points N (up) during 1 plate revolution “a”. Zero arrow axial rotation “b” just like a compass would show when walking around your friend always pointing & facing N.
a+0
In Fig. 2(b) the arrow points N (up) at the dotted line plate position, then arrow points NW at the solid line plate position. As the plate continues to revolve CCW on external axis O, the arrow progresses to point W,S,E, back to N (up) at the dotted line position. The arrow has made 1 axial rotation while the plate made a “rotation about an external axis” (=revolution) about point O.
a+b
Also note bill’s evidence shows arrow only translates up, left and then down and back to start, no axial rotation. Thus Fig. 2(a) labeled “translation”.
a+0
The arrow cm both translates up, left, down, back to start in Fig. 2(b) while arrow ALSO rotates axially once on internal axis which is a reason Madhavi (or at least the translator) labeled Fig. 2(b) “rotation”.
a+b
I know, bill. It is hard to take Ball4 seriously.
Ball4, the only rotation in Fig. 2(b) is about point O. The center of mass of the plate obviously exists, but there are zero rotations occurring about that axis. My position has not changed one iota.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I know, bill. It is hard to take Ball4 seriously.
=======================================
Yep its hard to tell if he is intentionally obfuscating or he is on drugs or something kind of psychosis and hallucinating about axes in the middle of chalked circles on the rectangular plate
“The center of mass of the plate obviously exists, but there are zero rotations occurring about that (2b axial) axis.”
The painted on arrow rotates 1 axial rotation in Fig. 2(b) DREMT as well as arrow translating.
I already understand you don’t believe your eyes; that’s been obvious since the get go, your non-spinner position is wrong.
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis (“b”) and revolves (“a”) about the Earth in about 27 days.”
a+b
The painted on arrow is rotating about point O, not on its own axis.
According to DREMT, the painted-on arrow is rotating about point O in both Fig. 2(a) and 2(b):
“revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis”
but arrow’s motion is obviously different in the two Madhavi illustrations. Arrow axial motion per rev. is 0 spins in 2(a) “translation” as arrow just translates and 1 full spin & translation in 2(b) which is Madhavi’s point for making the two figures.
If arrow not rotating on its axis in 2(b) Mahdavi only needed ONE figure. DREMT’s non-spinner way remains wrong.
There is no point O in Fig. 2(a).
swannie…”when the project requires more detail, such as shooting an artillery shell over long distances, then the Coriolis Effect must be included in the math”.
Would have to be a pretty slow artillery shell to require Coriolis correction. Do you mean an ICBM or longer range missile?
Looks like the only real way to answer this question is to put a gyroscope on the Moon, and then measure whether the Moon is rotating or not.
Wait, that’s already been done 6 times.
It is rotating…about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
The problem is both motions are observed, get out of your lazy-boy and take a look all around.
blob parades his lack of understanding…
A legend is the British navy had difficulty hitting the German fleet at the battle of Falkland Islands in WWI was they are correcting for northern hemisphere coriolis effect for a battle in the southern hemisphere and missing the Germans by 100 yards double the Coriolis effect adjustment of 50 yards.
But that’s just not true the British had a tough time through most of the battle because of being upwind from the Germans and their own funnel smoke was obscuring their view of the Germans.
Further while the Coriolis effect on artillery was known in WWI there is no evidence it was ever used.
The US allegedly started making coriolis corrections in battleship gunnery with the Iowa class of battleships. They sported an analog computer that incorporated a combination of radar and visual spotting to make calculations for accurate shooting that surpassed the Japanese abilities. Still battleships still rely upon visual corrections as even the best computers are guessing at wind speeds downrange and other variables introduced by imperfections in the weapons.
But the Coriolis effect on a direct north to south shot at the distance most of the Falklands WWI engagement was fought was about 4 meters. Not a lot for hitting a ship exposing its broadside but a bit more in hitting a ship running from you.
Artillery shells have more spindrift than that by quite a bit and are affected by wind speeds more also. So they relied solely upon distance and bearing calculations and made adjustments by observing splashes of missed shots.
the 4 meters difference was simply too small and too variable by latitude and direction to consider in the heat of battle without a computer and the number of hits missed by that variance a small fraction of shots at a time when initial shots almost always missed by a lot more because of other considerations.
For instance a typical long range sniper shot at the same latitude and direction of shot as the battle of Falklands being about 1/20th the distance would be off by 10centimeters for certain sniper rifles with twice the muzzle velocity. I would expect that the computers they use in modern 2 person sniper teams incorporate the coriolis effect also because of increased accuracy. For the record shot of 2 miles I suspect you either have to be lucky to make a one shot one kill hit or have a computer doing a lot of the work for you.
You can figure this out using calculators of the earths radius at various latitudes and the spin rate of the earth and specifications of the weapon being used. Individual snipers could plot out planned shots in advance but thats not typically the case for most conditions of battle.
You do get through my BS filter on some topics, except shells are tracked by radar these days (splashes too).
Svante…always lurking in the shadows…ready to pounce with some passive-aggressive comment at any moment…
bill…”The US allegedly started making coriolis corrections in battleship gunnery with the Iowa class of battleships”.
Not so sure those corrections were not due to the relative motion of the ships themselves rather than the rotation of the planet.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/05/gears-of-war-when-mechanical-analog-computers-ruled-the-waves/
According to this source they were both and more.
Bill…interesting. What they are calling analog computers is what we call servo systems in the electronics/electrical field. They use an non-amplified feedback to give a correction voltage to a motor or similar device.
Nice observation. Yes I have worked a little with servos. Mostly in maintaining a house my engineer grandfather built that had probably 3 to 4 dozen servos doing various tasks in the house. He worked for a company that built electric motors.
The officer who wrote the article above notes this about modern fire control systems at the end of the article:
”Ironically, analog computing technology lives on aboard the Zumwalt as part of its fire control system. Electronic analog computers are part of the phased-array radar system that aims Zumwalts missiles. Still, in the eyes of older Navy vets, its not really a fire control computer unless it has servos.”
And synchro/resolver interfaces live on even if both end points are digital.
Svante says:
June 14, 2020 at 2:16 PM
You do get through my BS filter on some topics, except shells are tracked by radar these days (splashes too).
====================================
Indeed. The Iowa class battleship had all those systems on board. Radar, visual observation, plotter rooms, computers to integrate all the information including manual input, and coordinated fire control to deal with the ship rolling in seas.
Similar systems are now used by all artillery units of all branches of the service. They have improved over the years with automated GPS input. Recently they have developed artillery shells that have built in flight control in the shell so they can make corrections for stuff like winds down range while the shell is in flight. M982 Excalibur.
The latest artillery can take out a tank at 35 miles with a single round 90% of the time if you accurately locate it and determine its speed and direction. So if the tank turns or hits the brakes while the shell is in flight there is still an opportunity to bring it on target.
Here is a US Marine Manual for artillery fire control teams to use including manual computations for correction for the coriolis effect using a pair of tables. It specifies the use of one table of corrections for firing at various azimuths for 0 degrees latitude. And then specifies the use of a second table to provide correction factors for different latitudes.
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/mcwp3_16_4.pdf
It goes on to specify that the calculations should be carried out by two different officers working independently to double check the firing solution for safety purposes. Thus longrange artillery can be used danger close to friendly troops and hit targets within with a high degree of accuracy. In past wars it was not uncommon at all to shell your own troops.
Good that you accept the science of ballistics.
There is no term for your MGR effect.
They were equally meticulous with heat seeking missiles.
See how CO2 cuts the Earth output power (blue) here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Svante says:
Good that you accept the science of ballistics.
There is no term for your MGR effect.
They were equally meticulous with heat seeking missiles.
See how CO2 cuts the Earth output power (blue) here:
=================================
You are not showing me how the earth cuts its output power Svante. You are just showing me a model of how some scientists think how the earth’s output power is cut. It’s a fine calculation of one movement of energy through the atmosphere but it does not account for the negative feedback that appears to dominate the energy budget and also matches up rather nicely to the negative feedbacks detected by observation by the owner of this blog in his analysis of actual climate dynamics.
Agreed, it’s a fine calculation of radiative energy transfer through the atmosphere. By increasing CO2 you can see that the saturation argument is false.
Yes, feed backs is the next step, positive and negative.
saturation occurs at the point that no significant warming occurs from adding CO2 anywhere near the levels they are currently being added.
A look at the single layer budget its already likely saturated. The atmospheric window is only somewhere between 20 and 40 watts. So its at least 90% saturated and most of the window isn’t anywhere near frequencies absorbed by CO2. Whats left of the single layer window might be good for a single watt, if that. Where the window obviously lies is with cloud cover. You get essentially zero escapement with stratus clouds and therefore you must get a large window without clouds providing huge space for alternative explanations for climate change. Whats not shown the budget is the height of mean frequency interception by frequency. Here you will get wide variances in climate temperature depending upon how far the light gets up in a cold atmosphere. Why don’t they show us that? Well probably lousy climate monitoring is the most likely reason. Of course why would anybody want to fix that when the favorite neener neerner theory is the only theory that leaves warming opportunity for CO2?
svante…”feed backs is the next step, positive and negative.”
There is no positive feedback in the atmosphere, only negative. As Roy once put it, positive feedback in climate science means a not-so-negative negative feedback.
bill hunter, there are many thoughts at once in your head.
You will be confused if you mix them all at once.
It’s a good start when you say MODTRAN does a “fine calculation”. The next step might be how reduced output power affects the surface through the lapse rate.
You can not have a feed back before you have an effect, so that comes later.
Svante says:
bill hunter, there are many thoughts at once in your head.
You will be confused if you mix them all at once.
Its a good start when you say MODTRAN does a fine calculation. The next step might be how reduced output power affects the surface through the lapse rate.
You can not have a feed back before you have an effect, so that comes later.
=========================
Svante, I have acknowledged reduced output power and are in agreement with the experts that from a single layer perspective the reduction in power in is very near saturation within the frequencies controlled by CO2
Modtran though looks at it from a multi-layered position and doesn’t care if so-called reduced power mid atmosphere has a pathway back to the surface or not, they just assume it does. So yes we are talking feedbacks from the absorp.tion of IR throughout the atmosphere producing a surface warming. From there they have a general concept of how it might get back to the surface through all the mid-atmosphere feedbacks and leave the actual way it does so to a large variety of models the output of which is averaged together and amazingly comes up with the exact target they assumed it would 32 years ago with a couple of models despite all these models having a huge output variation.
If you can’t spot a rigged game you probably should stay away from shady gambling establishments. Albeit recognition of this has over the years changed the shape of the tails and recently even started changing the average output, at least until it gets to the political editing phase of things so as to not disturb the mind meld field they have over their minions.
MODTRAN has no concept of climate feed backs.
It just calculates radiation through the atmosphere profile you specified, using the surface temperature you specified.
It does so at any altitude you specify, looking up or looking down. Save a run and see power difference CO2 makes (it’s the integral of the spectrum).
Svante says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:21 AM
MODTRAN has no concept of climate feed backs.
It just calculates radiation through the atmosphere profile you specified, using the surface temperature you specified.
It does so at any altitude you specify, looking up or looking down. Save a run and see power difference CO2 makes (it’s the integral of the spectrum).
==============================
I know the original didn’t. Though a recent version I saw was.
but that neither here nor there. Modtran is an explicit calculator not of how many watts reaches back to the surface but instead how many watts are absorbed by the atmosphere. Feedbacks are involved in getting the heat back to the surface.
bill hunter says:
“Modtran is an explicit calculator not of how many watts reaches back to the surface”
Just set altitude ‘0’ and ‘Looking Up’.
Then for fun, try setting all GHGs to zero.
The numeric fields recalculate when focus moves out.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
Modtran is an explicit calculator not of how many watts reaches back to the surface
Just set altitude 0 and Looking Up.
Then for fun, try setting all GHGs to zero.
The numeric fields recalculate when focus moves out.
================================
I am aware of that and have been for I think about 13 years. Is there a point you are trying to make hidden in there somewhere?
So why did you say MODTRAN can’t calculate “how many watts reaches back to the surface”?
And why did you ask me why Ångströms saturation argument was discarded?
MODTRAN shows how more CO2 lowers output to space and increases input at the surface.
Svante says:
So why did you say MODTRAN cant calculate how many watts reaches back to the surface?
And why did you ask me why ngstrms saturation argument was discarded?
MODTRAN shows how more CO2 lowers output to space and increases input at the surface.
================================
Sounds like to me you have been led down the yellow brick road by Real Climate or something like that.
MODTRAN is a view of how much radiation reaches space, not a view of how much radiation reaches the ground. How much that reaches back through 20 layers of atmosphere to the ground is simply assumed to be 100%.
But its a view from space not a view from the ground. Big difference. The silence on this issue is deafening. It explains the huge divergence between models. If they knew how this worked all the models would come up with results that only varied by effects caused by other unrelated phenomena which explains the huge amounts of money invested in guessing what those effects are that the atmosphere doesn’t follow the rules the models set out for it.
Another indicator of model unreliability is how temps are always too cool and the models too hot. Gradually as this process of failure continues somebody finally has to throw their hands up and say OK we got it wrong.
If you set the altitude to zero you are at the surface.
If you select “Looking Up” you see the back radiation.
How many W/m^2 do you see?
Yes IN THE MODEL when you look up you see the backradiation. Only problem with that is the data that the entire model is based on only looks down from space.
Only problem with that is MODTRAN was built with observations of air transmissivity within Earth atm. at altitude and local weather conditions, day and night.
bill hunter says:
“Only problem with that is the data that the entire model is based on only looks down from space.”
Where did you get that impression from? Here:
https://tinyurl.com/yawrfm9d
Ball4 says:
Only problem with that is MODTRAN was built with observations of air transmissivity within Earth atm. at altitude and local weather conditions, day and night.
==============================
Which we don’t have a working model for. Understanding perturbations within the atmosphere has to be capable of us understanding more about the phase change of water and how clouds are formed before concluding they won’t.
Svante says:
Where did you get that impression from? Here:
====================================
Perhaps you could alternatively explain to me why you believe one particular source when there are so many scientific groups out there coming up with different sensitivities?
One merely has to train oneself to not be a bozo and consider all the arguments available and look at the evidence in front of you to conclude that we truly do not understand yet how variations in CO2 will or will not warm the surface further.
To be a bit more succinct in the previous comment. You have two classes of scientists not in disagreement.
Class 1 – The group that accepts CO2 is a control knob for climate among other well identified control knobs. This group models sensitivities based upon historic warming. There is wide disagreement in this group but what they all hold in common is that observed warming has been caused by variations in CO2 unless otherwise identified to another source.
Class 2 – The group that accepts CO2 could be a control knob for climate but doesn’t accept that all climate modifying factors have yet been identified. This group cannot even work on sensitivities and thus cannot qualify for any grants for doing so because they acknowledge the likelihood of not being able to do the job.
So what we have is Class 1 being the only climate modeling funded group and they are arguing among themselves about how much a control knob CO2 is.
The second group is unfunded as a climate modeling as they contend climate modeling isn’t yet ready for primetime use. The most common argument used about this is a lack of understanding of what brings about cloud variability.
So both groups have extremely strong reasons for their convictions. The big question is why some idiot would run around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming the sky is falling using a single model (like Modtran) to back them up?
“Which we dont have a working model for.”
Oh yes we do. Missiles operating in atm. IR radiation bands, in all weather, based on atm. opacity in MODTRAN, can take out the passenger of a car leaving the driver mostly unharmed just scared witless. Or hit a campfire from the Mediterranean and scare hell out of the sleeping camels but not harm them.
As far as CGMs, they are getting better from CERES Team as of Feb. 2020 when compared to observations which “depend upon how well (each GCM) represents reflected solar radiation changes in regions dominated by low clouds, particularly those over the eastern Pacific ocean.”
“We find remarkable agreement between observed and simulated differences in reflected solar and emitted thermal infrared radiation between the post‐hiatus and hiatus periods.”
Ball4 doesn’t understand what a perturbation is.
bill, MODTRAN is not a climate model.
It does not do climate “sensitivity”.
It does basic radiative heat transfer.
I was glad when you seemed to accept this basic foundation.
Just like your 1st and 2nd class scientists do.
I realize now that you are unable to understand.
Svante says:
bill, MODTRAN is not a climate model.
It does not do climate “sensitivity”.
It does basic radiative heat transfer.
I was glad when you seemed to accept this basic foundation.
Just like your 1st and 2nd class scientists do.
I realize now that you are unable to understand.
======================================
Svante doing basic radiative heat transfer doesn’t tell you how much a surface warms. You guys are so married to the idea of a cold atmosphere apriori warming the surface you really miss how to ask questions about how it actually works.
Quite a few scientists are skeptical of the conclusions of Modtran. Roy here has stated he essentially believes in the greenhouse effect but has said its possible its wrong. Obviously a bit short of a scientific fact. Meanwhile is analysis of negative feedback suggests that MODTRAN is wrong.
Roy knows alot about how Modtran works. You don’t. And Roy just is the start of a long list of scientists that think MODTRAN might be correct about pre-feedback sensitivity reported by MODTRAN but harbor some level of uncertainty. I cut my teeth on these kinds of models over 33 years ago. And to this day still work around them.
Most explanations are stacked into MODTRAN pre-feedback sensitivity as a starting point not unlike the moon rotating on its own axis. They will continue to do that until it presents a problem that can’t be solved with the wrong answer.
Most estimates put feedbacks as positive so there is no need to start questioning pre-feedback sensitivity. However, it it turns out half of the warming we have seen has another cause, it will be time to start questioning MODTRAN.
In the meantime there is no harm in accepting MODTRAN.
Some scientists are already saying half the warming is natural. That instantly raises questions about MODTRAN.
Until then its just fun poking fun at people who think they are well informed. The moon rotation discussion has been fantastic in uncovering those who think everything they hear from select people is indeed a scientific fact.
Yes, moon rotation really was a good idiot test.
It revealed you are an idiot, Svante. Glad you agree.
Yes, you have built quite a brain trust here with Gordon, ClintR, bill hunter, and Gbaikie too I dare say.
…and Nikola Tesla
Yes, when he was 63 years old, when:
Good to know there are no depths you wont sink to.
He was great in many ways, but he was not an astronomer.
Perhaps your other Balkan authority was, AS Tomic did his research “while affiliated with Faculty of Music in Belgrade and other places”. Can you verify that?
https://tinyurl.com/y6wq4fdx
I see Svante is descending into the depths of ad hominems against Tesla and claiming he didn’t wear the official badge of an astronomer. Fact is Tesla did not give into authority as the spinners in this forum have with really no argument other than the fallacy of authority to support their argument.
Wrong guy, Svante.
Tomic:
http://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
Is it the right paper though?
“The Lunar orbit paradox”?
Not sure what you are trying to say…
…and not very interested.
I can see that he got a diploma in 1973, and he added a Magister degree in 2005, so he was qualified when he wrote the lunar paper in 2013, at age 66.
So you do have two authorities to back you up.
Plus Gordon, bill hunter, JD, and possibly gbaikie.
The number of Non-Spinners on this blog is now in the double figures.
Not that it matters.
You are correct. There are about 10000 professional astronomers in the world but that does not prove anything.
Your two authorities could still be right. After all, one of them was an astronomer at the People’s Observatory in Belgrade. Tesla never received a degree, but was a brilliant electrical engineer and inventor at the end of the 19th century.
Stop worrying about authority and start thinking for yourself.
Yes. Case in point, your moon ally Gordon has found faults in Einstein’s theory of relativity.
No, start thinking for yourself.
Svante says:
Yes. Case in point, your moon ally Gordon has found faults in Einsteins theory of relativity.
================================
Hey Einstein thought there were faults in his theory up to the day he died.
Your problem Svante is you are a rote learner and don’t use your own noggin for understanding. This issue is a classic because of the thousand astronomers you mention not one of them has written a paper explaining in detail why they think the moon orbits on its own axis. It’s simply assumed it does.
Like photon theory some people think all the IR detectors and quantum mechanics clearly define photons as little particles flying in all directions. It at some point won favor over the wave theory of light because of the discovery of quanta a mathematical concept that lacks a physical description. After his great discoveries in the early 20th century he said in 1954:
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Quite simply in physics systems are dissected in the individual components based upon relevant facts. DREMT laid out the relevant facts in this discussion with Madhavi’s Rigid Body Dynamics.
If you understood rigid body dynamics right down the engineering physics level needed to properly design and build things you would understand there is nothing about the moon system not seen engineering. Everything has a waggle, everything bends, everything twists, everything has a degree of elasticity, everything is subject to friction to some degree (from gravity in space). The logic of our understanding of what an orbit implies and its applicability to Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b) combined with sufficient rigidity from friction arising out at least gravity is a perfect fit. It might not take much to get the moon spinning again but thats something to worry about when it happens.
Another case in point, thank you.
svante…”See how CO2 cuts the Earth output power (blue) here:”
Put away the theoretical jargon and study the Ideal Gas Law. It proves conclusively that CO2 can cause no mpore warming than it’s 0.04% mass percent. All atmospheric warming (99%) comes from N2/O2.
“All atmospheric warming (99%) comes from N2/O2.”
What fuel does O2/N2 burn to warm atm.?
the energy of the sun Ball4
Yes atm. warming comes from the sun burning a fuel, better answer bill. At best added CO2 atm. opacity can only warm the lower regions while equally cooling the upper regions for no net change. N2/O2 play a very minor role in overall atm. opacity so are not control knobs for sure.
Ball4 says:
At best added CO2 atm. opacity can only warm the lower regions while equally cooling the upper regions for no net change. N2/O2 play a very minor role in overall atm. opacity so are not control knobs for sure.
===================================
thats the theory alright you stated right there now whats the evidence?
The evidence is found in the lab and out in the wild, bill. It is where YOU find it.
In other words you don’t know where to find it so you can’t show anybody where it is. So its out in the field waiting for somebody to come up with an experiment, document the experiment, and have the experiment show what you believe without anybody having ever done it.
Got it!
I’ve already found about atm. thermodynamics with my own research on the subject and read up on it bill, it is up to you to do the same research on your own. It would be great to see you catch up on the details.
A great place to start would be the text on the subject by Bohren 1998. Then actually track down his ref.s at the end of each Chapter.
Ball4 says:
Ive already found about atm. thermodynamics with my own research on the subject and read up on it bill, it is up to you to do the same research on your own. It would be great to see you catch up on the details.
A great place to start would be the text on the subject by Bohren 1998. Then actually track down his ref.s at the end of each Chapter.
==================================
There you go again blabbering about something you know the answer to but don’t have clue one.
I have been working with these systems since 1973. You think you can read a few things and know it all.
What you don’t understand is that in an exchange of energy at the first layer the surface is directly affected by the exchange of radiation. At the next layer it isn’t thus in the delay between absor-ption of IR and the emission of thermal radiation feedbacks are constantly occurring. Thus the multi-layered model is affected by feedbacks before any additional radiation can get to the surface. Those feedbacks can include convective forces, it can include evaporation of condensed water in the atmosphere.
One only has to to just glance at a surface energy budget and see that evaporation/transpiration/sublimation is a huge negative feedback.
Folks are in complete denial of it because it doesn’t fit their inculcated belief system. Rather than find an answer to it better to just handwave it away.
bill, you have missed rain returning to the surface all the lost evaporative energy from the surface in the exact same amount for no net global surface temperature change over multiannual observations. You miss downdrafts doing the same too. The guys that really know surface energy budgets do not make the same mistakes as bill does.
Ball4 says:
N2/O2 play a very minor role in overall atm. opacity so are not control knobs for sure.
================================
Don’t bet the family farm on it.
You need power to raise temperature.
How does the ideal gas law give you one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Power_or_heat_flow_rate
Svante says:
You need power to raise temperature.
How does the ideal gas law give you one of these:
==============================================
A much better question by far is how does the ideal gas law cause a lower emission of energy to space. After all its acknowledged that the multi-layered greenhouse effect does not work without a lapse rate.
“…how does the ideal gas law cause a lower emission of energy to space.”
Lower surface pressure is one way. Once bill catches up on the details of atm. thermodynamics, this will be obvious.
Ball4 says:
how does the ideal gas law cause a lower emission of energy to space.
Lower surface pressure is one way. Once bill catches up on the details of atm. thermodynamics, this will be obvious.
===========================
I wasn’t talking about surface emissions Ball4.
Svante says:
You need power to raise temperature.
How does the ideal gas law give you one of these:
===========================================
LOL! I guess I can parrot Ball4 and simply say higher surface pressure is one way. ROTFLMAO!!
Yeah, keep the pressure steady and it will deliver never ending power. ROTFLYAO at the patent office when you get your perpetuum mobile rights.
Hilarious indeed!
swannie…”You all continue to claim that the Moon rotates as if all the particles within follow concentric orbits within the orbital plane defined by the motion of the Moons CM”.
Not so. I am claiming all particles on the Moon follow concentric orbital paths within the plane of the lunar orbit which is centred on the Earth’s CM. In other words, the lunar orbital plane passes through the Earth’s CM and the Moon’s CM and the Moon is orbiting the Earth on that plane with all of its particles following concentric orbital paths. No local lunar rotation.
You chided Bill for confusing rotation with revolving now you are doing the same.
Gordo wrote:
Sorry Gordo (and the rest of you “non-spinners”) that’s not what happens with the Moon. It’s easily observed that as the Moon presents successive Full Moon views, there is variation in the amount of the North Pole visible. Some times more or the opposite side visible, whereas, on those occasions, there is a lessened view of the South Pole and the opposite case will also appear, one of the Moon’s Librations. The only logical way to explain that is axial rotation about an axis tilted relative to the Moon’s orbital plane, a fact discovered centuries ago.
Conclusion: The Moon (still) rotates around it’s axis.
You still don’t get it, Swanson. Librations are due to orbital variations. The Moon is not rotating about its axis.
And you’re still confused about “a fact discovered centuries ago”. The “fact” is from astrology. The “fact” is the attempt to explain Moon always facing Earth. The “fact” from astrology is wrong. Moon always faces Earth because it is not rotating about its axis. It is only orbiting.
E. Swanson, yes your conclusion is correct, the moon is spinning using DREMT sources as references. The non-spinners use the non-spinning term for an object that is obviously spinning. Their vocabulary on the subject is reversed from normal text astronomical terms.
Swanso, no your conclusion is incorrect, the moon is not spinning using DREMT sources as references. The spinners use the spinning term for an object that is obviously not spinning. Their vocabulary on the subject is reversed from normal text astronomical terms.
So, DRsEMT, how do you explain the obvious tilt of the Moon WRT it’s orbital plane, i.e., the variation the area observed at each pole over a year’s time? Perhaps you would weld a tilted Moon” to your MGR? Oh, wait, that wouldn’t display the same face to an observer at the center of the MGR. Well, maybe you would weld an axis to the MGR and then allow the Moon to rotate about said axis once each orbit/revolution of the MGR.
Woops, that means that the Moon would rotate as it revolves around it’s orbit. QED…
Allow me to try again.
Would DRsEMT would weld a sphere to a bearing on the MGR, which would then rotate WRT the MGR once each revolution. That would produce the different polar views over each side if the poles were defined as a tilted line thru said sphere. Again, this would only provide the necessary fixed view of one side if the sphere were then allowed to rotate around the tilted line, aka, the sphere’s axis.
What say you, troll??
The moon orbits the Earth/moon barycenter. Whilst it does so, it is oriented to its orbital plane in such a way that an imaginary line through the body is tilted a few degrees away from perpendicular to the orbital plane. This imaginary line remains tilted towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit.
None of which proves rotation about that imaginary line.
I have no idea why you people believe it does.
Feel free to scroll up through the comments and find my other posts on the matter, too.
Swanson is grasping at straws again.
If he wants a model of Moon’s motion, he could use the train on an oval track, someone mention before. Mount a sphere on the train, with as much “tilt” as desired. The sphere would still not be rotating on its axis.
E. Swanson says:
So, DRsEMT, how do you explain the obvious tilt of the Moon WRT its orbital plane, i.e., the variation the area observed at each pole over a years time? Perhaps you would weld a tilted Moon to your MGR? Oh, wait, that wouldnt display the same face to an observer at the center of the MGR. Well, maybe you would weld an axis to the MGR and then allow the Moon to rotate about said axis once each orbit/revolution of the MGR.
Woops, that means that the Moon would rotate as it revolves around its orbit. QED
================================
Wow you must have been fun to work with in the engineering department!
On an mgr if I wanted to see some north pole then some south pole as the merry go round went round I would not start spinning the the globes. What I would do is put them on the same kind of mechanism that makes the little horsies go up and down will they were galloping around the mgr.
DRsEMT wrote:
I think you are getting close here. Your “imaginary line” is really the Moon’s axis of rotation, which is fixed in inertial space (i.s., pointing toward a fixed star) by the Moon’s rotational inertia. Because that “line” does not change direction as the Moon orbits, if the moon did not rotate, each Full Moon would exhibit different views. However, the Moon does rotate slowly, presenting nearly same view at each Full Moon.
The tilting axis is identical to the case of the Earth as seen from a point along the line between it and the Sun. The Earth’s axis constantly points toward “some star” (aka, the North Star) thus the view exhibits a greater or lesser view of each hemisphere over the yearly insolation cycle. The only difference is that the Moon’s tilt WRT it’s orbital plane is smaller, thus the change in hemispheric view is much less.
DRsEMT continues:
Maybe this will help
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. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s revolution about the Sun. Galileo Galilei is sometimes credited with the discovery of the lunar libration in latitude in 1632,[2] although Thomas Harriot or William Gilbert could have done so before.[4] Note Cassini’s laws. It can reach 6°50′ in amplitude.[3]
E.Swanson says:
I think you are getting close here. Your “imaginary line” is really the Moon’s axis of rotation, which is fixed in inertial space (i.s., pointing toward a fixed star) by the Moon’s rotational inertia. Because that “line” does not change direction as the Moon orbits, if the moon did not rotate, each Full Moon would exhibit different views. However, the Moon does rotate slowly, presenting nearly same view at each Full Moon.
==============================
Whoa! not each full moon, all the time. The only thing that changes is where the sunshines rotates around the moon.
if the moon had an independent rotation at the same rate or some multiple of the same rate you would see virtually the same full moon each rotation and again for each multiple in a different moon phase.
Because it has no independent rotation you have the same view 100% of the time.
The tilting axis is identical to the case of the Earth as seen from a point along the line between it and the Sun. The Earth’s axis constantly points toward “some star” (aka, the North Star) thus the view exhibits a greater or lesser view of each hemisphere over the yearly insolation cycle. The only difference is that the Moon’s tilt WRT it’s orbital plane is smaller, thus the change in hemispheric view is much less.
=========================================
Actually thats quite incorrect. The earth’s axis current points at the north star and moves very little in an annual orbit. The earths axis is tilted toward the north star
Thats because the earth’s spin on its own axis was not caused by the sun’s gravity.
The rotation that is commanded by earth’s gravity has an axis in the middle of the sun pointed at a different star. Its just not easily noticed from space as this anomaly is divided up into 366 rotations and the 23.5 degree difference causes a tiny wobble in the earth as viewed from space. 23.5 degrees divided by 366 equals a .064 degree wobble when viewed from space.
From earth its not manifested as a rotation but instead it creates seasons. If the ecliptic plane prescribed by the earths orbit around the sun were the same as its tilt the earth would not be considered to be tilted and there would be no wobble and no seasons.
The moon though has an axis perpendicular to
axis is not commanded by earths gravity but is instead defined by the direction of a spin put on the earth by an unknown force.
However, the moon’s axis DOES NOT act that way.
The moons axis’ tilt reverses on its way around the moon.
it is tilted
by for than 6 degrees and reverses its tilt half way through the orbit unlike the earth where the tilt stays in the same direction.
forget all the text below the second double line thats all wrong.
Swanso erroneously believes he is teaching something new to me…
No. It does not prove rotation about the imaginary line. The moon is orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
DRsEMT wrote:
Your various mental models of the Moon’s motions, particularly the MGR flat disk with a chalk circle, assume that the Moon’s motions are that of a second flat disk which is attached to (or orbiting) the first some distance from the center of the first. That’s also what you presented with your animated graphic, particularly the view of the one on the left. In your model/graphic, the velocity at all points in the second disk along the line between the disks will follow an circle (actually, an ellipse) as both disks are rotating about parallel axes. Your graphic adds further confusion as the Earth is shown as a non-rotating body, thus distorting the illusion. You don’t need to show the Earth, simply place a point for the common barycenter and your graphic would better present the situation.
But, modify the left view by adding a dot for the point on the Moon where your “imaginary” line meets the surface, placed a little to the East of the center. For each view of the Moon, that dot must remain in the same place, due East of the center, since it’s fixed in the stars. For the Earth based viewer to see the same side as shown, the Moon must rotate about that line, not your line normal to the orbital plane which appears to rotate around the fixed point. Try another graphic with only four views, one for each quadrant.
Conclusion: Your line fixed to the stars is therefore the Moon’s axis of rotation.
Swanson, as per the example given by the NASA ISS Flight Director, if you walk around another person, CCW, your left side will always be facing the person. That’s the motion you see from orbiting. The person in the middle only sees one side of you. That’s FACT.
Facts are very confusing to idiots.
No, it is still just an imaginary line through the body. As is an axis, of course, although with an axis the body rotates about that line. The moon, however, rotates only about an external axis, one passing through the Earth/moon barycenter. That motion is referred to as revolving, or orbiting, and is represented by the motion of the moon on the left in the Wikipedia gif linked to below.
For the Spinners to be correct, revolution must be represented by the motion of the moon on the right. However, that motion is not a rotation about an external axis.
So, the Spinners are incorrect.
Swanson the reason the moon nods is because it has a tilted orbit.
The moon isn’t tilted in regards to the gravitational forces that control it.
A tidal locked moon is tied closely to the ecliptic which is the strongest line of pull when the sun and the earth are in alignment.
It stays there because its not orbiting vertically so the tilt of the moon is in alignment with the ecliptic plane.
The orbital plane has no forces to hold it in alignment with it thus because the tilted orbital plane only describes the velocity and direction of travel of the moon.
B Hunter wrote:
No, Bill, your conception is incorrect. The line of sight between the Earth and the Moon will always be nearly parallel to the Moon’s orbital plane, which changes little over time. The North-South Libration is the result of the fact that the Moon’s axis, being fixed in space, is tilted WRT the orbital plane, thus your view changes as the Earth orbits (“revolves”) around the Sun.
Swanson says:
Swanson the reason the moon nods is because it has a tilted orbit.
No, Bill, your conception is incorrect. The line of sight between the Earth and the Moon will always be nearly parallel to the Moons orbital plane, which changes little over time.
==========================
Irrelevant. The nodding of the moon ”libration by latitude” is caused by the tilt of the moon to its orbital plane.
At the the two points on the orbit where the orbital plane intersects the ecliptic plane called nodes (ascending node and descending node) ”There is no libration of latitude when the moon is at its ascending node or descending node”
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration
=================================
===============================
E. Swanson says:
The North-South Libration is the result of the fact that the Moons axis, being fixed in space, is tilted WRT the orbital plane, thus your view changes as the Earth orbits (revolves) around the Sun.
============================
Incorrect. Your view changes as the moon orbits around the earth due mostly to the tilt of the moons orbit as I was saying since its tied to the ecliptic at the intersection of the orbital and ecliptic planes no libration is observed. Each half month (one full orbit) from some place on earth you can observe the maximum libration of the moon alternately southpole then northpole.
B Hunter wrote
I respectfully disagree. When looking toward the Moon, one is almost looking along a line of sight parallel to the Moon’s orbital plane. If there is no tilt in the Moon’s rotational axis WRT the normal to the plane, every view would be identical, just like the ball-on-a-string model. I’m sure that you now agree that that’s not what one sees, is it?
Also, the nodal crossing of the Moon’s orbit with the Ecliptic is the point at which Eclipses occur, perhaps twice a year, but there’s some 13 Full Moons a year and the others don’t happen to be at the crossing of the Ecliptic. Each Full Moon will at a different section of the Moon’s orbital plane and thus different degrees of Libration in Latitude as the Moon rotates once each orbit around the tilted axis and the Earth orbits the Sun.
Swanson, If the moon was orbiting on the eliptic plane it would not have the libration by latitude because the moon isn’t tilted to the elipitic plane other than a small 1.5 degree precession.
Sure if the moon were titled and the orbit not then you would have libration by latitude. So one of the two, the orbit or the moon need to be tilted.
The moon’s orbit is tilted and the moon is not. The moon is tilted in with respect to the moons orbit but that because the orbit is tilted.
I am using the ecliptic as the standard as most of the planets are very close to the ecliptic in going around the sun. I am aware that obliquity refers to a tilt with regards the orbital plane which for the earth is the same as the ecliptic plane.
https://www.asteroidmission.org/galleries/word-of-the-week/ecliptic-plane/
but I am OK if you want to say its because the moon is tilted.
the reason I said incorrect was to your comment: ”thus your view changes as the Earth orbits (revolves) around the Sun.” you don’t have to wait for the earth to revolve around the sun. It changes nodes every two weeks roughly.
B. Hunter, The Moon does not orbit in the ecliptic plane, it has it’s own orbital plane. As mankind views the Moon from Earth, our line of sight is along that orbital plane, thus what we observe as Libration in Latitude is directly the result of the Moon’s axial tilt WRT it’s orbital plane. It’s only at Full Moon that the side of the Moon facing the Earth is completely illuminated, thus the detection of Libration requires viewing successive Full Moons over one (or more) annual cycles as the Sun-Earth vector rotates WRT the Lunar orbit.
e. Swanson says:
B. Hunter, The Moon does not orbit in the ecliptic plane, it has its own orbital plane. As mankind views the Moon from Earth, our line of sight is along that orbital plane, thus what we observe as Libration in Latitude is directly the result of the Moons axial tilt WRT its orbital plane. Its only at Full Moon that the side of the Moon facing the Earth is completely illuminated, thus the detection of Libration requires viewing successive Full Moons over one (or more) annual cycles as the Sun-Earth vector rotates WRT the Lunar orbit.
——————————
Strawman! I never said the moon orbits the ecliptic plane.
You are just throwing stuff at the wall trying to make something stick. Our line of sight is only along the orbital plane when we happen to be standing on the orbital plane and the orbital plane flies past us as the earth spins under it.. About the equivalent of standing on the prime meridian. We no more look at the moon along the orbital plane that we do from an infinite number of planes we could create by degree, by minute, by second etc.
The ecliptic plane flies by us also since the earth is tipped and spinning on its axis.
Bottom line you can say either its because the orbit is tipped from the ecliptic plane or the moon is tipped in its orbit. Either works.
Further there would be only one certain way to end the libration by longitude. That would be to align its orbit with the ecliptic. That wouldn’t violate any known physical law and the libration would cease.
You could try untipping the moon but it might not do anything over the long term. Thats because the moon’s attitude is being actively controlled by gravity and either the moon would tip back over time or its axis would move so it would be viewed as still tipping but with a different view towards.
So if the only correction that could be applied in view of known science to end libration by latitude would be to untip the orbit.
bill hunter says:
Wrong. A circular orbit is required.
Think about it.
I misspoke. I meant libration by latitude. Had a brain fart.
B Hunter wrote:
The Earth is “tipped” WRT the Ecliptic plane, thus, when viewed from the Sun, there would be an obvious “Libration by Latitude”, i.e., seasonal variation in that view. In order to remove the Moon’s Libration by Latitude, given it’s known fixed axis of rotation, the Moon would need to orbit with the axis of rotation normal to the new orbit’s plane. That new orbit would still be slightly tilted WRT the Ecliptic plane.
Of course, the Moon-Earth-Sun relationship is quite complicated. For example, the Moon’s orbit exhibits precession of it’s nodal crossing WRT the Ecliptic with a period of ~18.6 years, which would impact the visible Libration by Latitude. And, the Moon’s axis also exhibits precession, (as does the Earth), which also slightly affects it’s Libration by Latitude.
But you “non-spinner” guys will continue to ignore the facts of astronomy, with all your models which do not include the effects of the tilt of the Moon’s axis while playing endless games, such as the semantics of revolve (orbit) and rotate (spin). In the end, you’re point of view is clearly wrong, but, not being a professional, I can’t convince you, so that’s it for me.
Happy COVID-19 crash!!
Swanson, the Spinners conception of revolution without axial rotation (motion as per the moon on the right) is wrong. Its as simple as that. By definition, revolution without axial rotation is as per the moon on the left.
“The moon’s orbit is tilted and the moon is not. The moon is tilted in with respect to the moons orbit but that because the orbit is tilted.”
I don’t understand this method of arguing, Bill, where you simply deny well documented facts.
The Moon DOES have an AXIAL TILT of 6.7 degrees. It is tilted wrt to its orbital axis (or a normal vector to the orbital plane).
To deny this fact is to admit that you’ve lost the argument, and are just trolling.
E. Swanson says:
The Earth is tipped WRT the Ecliptic plane, thus, when viewed from the Sun, there would be an obvious Libration by Latitude, i.e., seasonal variation in that view.
===========================
You need to look up what the ecliptic plane is. Its the plane that goes from the center of the sun to the center of the earth and follow earth’s orbit of the sun. Thus the ecliptic plane is the same as the earth’s orbital plane, except that the ecliptic plane is extended to the outer limit of the solar system.
Thus the view from earth would be the same as from the sun.
=========================
=========================
E. Swanson says:
In order to remove the Moons Libration by Latitude, given its known fixed axis of rotation, the Moon would need to orbit with the axis of rotation normal to the new orbits plane. That new orbit would still be slightly tilted WRT the Ecliptic plane.
====================
What do you mean by rotation normal?
Nate says:
The moon’s orbit is tilted and the moon is not. The moon is tilted in with respect to the moons orbit but that because the orbit is tilted.
I dont understand this method of arguing, Bill, where you simply deny well documented facts.
The Moon DOES have an AXIAL TILT of 6.7 degrees. It is tilted wrt to its orbital axis (or a normal vector to the orbital plane).
To deny this fact is to admit that youve lost the argument, and are just trolling.
=======================================
Strawman! I didn’t say the moon was not tilted with respect to its orbital plane.
What I said was the moon is not tilted with respect to the eclipitic plane because that is the source of gravity that rotates the moon around the earth’s axis. The orbital path merely causes the moon to rise and sink vertically as it goes around the ecliptic plane like a globe fixed to a mgr with a tilted platform.
B Hunter wrote:
What do you mean by rotation normal?
The phrase “normal to” refers to the axis being perpendicular to the Mooon’s orbital plane.
And, you wrote:
Not so. There’s no “rise and sink”, it’s just that the orbital plane is tilted WRT the ecliptic. The MGR model is a model of the motion in the Moon’s orbital plane, not motion WRT the Ecliptic. To properly model the Moon with the MGR, the axis would need to be fixed in space, thus the “axis” would need to be attached to the MGR with a bearing which rotates in a the direction opposite the MGR, which would keep the axis pointing in the same direction while the Moon also rotates around that axis.
Then too, gravity doesn’t CAUSE the Moon to rotate, it causes it to orbit/revolve. Gravity has already CAUSED the Moon to be tidally locked, so there’s no longer any change in the RATE of rotation, just precession of the axis.
E. Swanson says:
Not so. Theres no rise and sink, its just that the orbital plane is tilted WRT the ecliptic. The MGR model is a model of the motion in the Moons orbital plane, not motion WRT the Ecliptic.
==============================
No I didn’t say the orbit was WRT to the ecliptic I said the rotation of the moon is WRT the ecliptic. Tidal locking isn’t some magical force its the mean highest combined pull of the sun and earth. And that happens to be WRT the ecliptic.
Like a tilted ride in an amusement park the moon orbits its orbital path and moves the moon above and below the ecliptic plane equally. Of course the orbital path is influenced by the earth and the tilt of the orbit seems likely to be somehow connected to the direction the moon was travel WRT to the earth when it entered orbit.
You guys are just out there someplace and not comprehending what is going on.
========================
========================
E. Swanson says:
To properly model the Moon with the MGR, the axis would need to be fixed in space, thus the axis would need to be attached to the MGR with a bearing which rotates in a the direction opposite the MGR, which would keep the axis pointing in the same direction while the Moon also rotates around that axis.
==
===================
Well we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is NOT going on.
=====================
=====================
E. Swanson says:
Then too, gravity doesnt CAUSE the Moon to rotate, it causes it to orbit/revolve. Gravity has already CAUSED the Moon to be tidally locked, so theres no longer any change in the RATE of rotation, just precession of the axis.
===========================
orbit revolve rotate are all the same thing Swanson.
B Hunter wrote:
I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. Start with a typical desktop Earth globe mounted on a frame with an axis tilted at ~23.5 deg, the frame sitting on a base. Change the frame to reduce that tilt to 6.5 Deg. Now, mount the base on DRsEMT’s MGR using a bearing so that the frame can rotate about the vertical. First, is should be obvious that to keep the line from the axis pointing in one direction, such as a fly on the wall or a distant star, as the MGR is rotated CCW, the frame must rotate CW at the same rate WRT the MGR. Second, to keep (nearly) the same side facing a viewer at the center of the MGR, the globe must rotate CCW WRT around the axis.
As soon as you guys admitted that the Moon’s axis is pointed in a fixed direction, then the simple flat plane rotating MGR, chalk circle, model fails.
Oh, sorry about the excess bolding, I didn’t cut it off properly.
E. Swanson says:
June 19, 2020 at 9:03 PM
B Hunter wrote:
Well we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is NOT going on
I suppose I wasnt clear enough. Start with a typical desktop Earth globe mounted on a frame with an axis tilted at ~23.5 deg, the frame sitting on a base. Change the frame to reduce that tilt to 6.5 Deg. Now, mount the base on DRsEMTs MGR using a bearing so that the frame can rotate about the vertical. First, is should be obvious that to keep the line from the axis pointing in one direction, such as a fly on the wall or a distant star, as the MGR is rotated CCW, the frame must rotate CW at the same rate WRT the MGR. Second, to keep (nearly) the same side facing a viewer at the center of the MGR, the globe must rotate CCW WRT around the axis.
As soon as you guys admitted that the Moons axis is pointed in a fixed direction, then the simple flat plane rotating MGR, chalk circle, model fails.
===========================
You are way out in left field there Swanson. I am talking about a specific special case, not some axis that waggles as the mgr goes around. Its quite simple and a special case as it needs to be for a proper rotation around the mgr.
To create the tilted effect for each individual axis on the plate requires a level plate and a mechanism to lift the globe with a motion that causes it to go up and down once every revolution like a horsey on an mgr.
In the case of the moon the lift is provided by the tilted orbit (i.e. the direction of travel of the moon) and the tilt of the axis on that orbit is provided by the pull of gravity along the ecliptic plane. If there were no sun influence in this system and that didn’t undo the tidal locking at present the moon would not be tilted WRT its orbit.
This argument is simple the spinners want a universal concept for rotating bodies in the universe without regard to individual situations and forcings. And the non-spinners want to divide stuff up into systems and give consideration to physical laws within individual systems to determine the reality of rotation.
So astronomy invented the concept of synchronous rotation without really defining what synchronous implies regarding the same forces that cause something to rotate around another object also cause the rotation to eventually behave just like in rigid body dynamics, complete with the creation of a new axis.
As science advances it will be interesting to find out if the recent discovery of the moon’s axis moving over the last billion years or so and leaving a trail of ice from hence it came is or is not evidence of the creation of that new axis as the moons independent spin was ended.
Satellites are yet another case of a more complex system that has significant forces occurring from atmospheric drag. Whereby gravity has a weak influence to force a satellite flying essentially sideways, the atmospheric drag and its winds and circulations and variability doesn’t like irregular objects flying sideways.
B. Hunter wrote:
You’re joking again, right? Your “level plate” is presumably the round plate of the MGR model. There’s no “lift”, since there’s no force acting perpendicular to said “level plate”. Perhaps you think the Sun makes the Moon’s axis move “up and down” vs it’s orbital plane, but the Moon’s CG remains in that orbital plane, there’s no “up and down” motion, the Moon’s axis is kept pointing toward a location in the stars by the Moon’s rotational momentum. There’s no torque on the Moon to change it’s tilt.
It’s identical to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. A model using a rotating disk (or MGR) for the Earth’s orbit in teh Ecliptic could be built, using a desktop globe with frame and base. Attach the base using a bearing to the edge of the rotating disk so the base could rotate around a vertical axis. In order to keep the Earth’s tilted axis pointing toward the North Star, the base would need to rotate once an orbit as the globe rotates every day. It’s the same model as the Moon/MGR requiring a globe and rotating base, but with different tilt and rates of motion/rotation.
E. Swanson says:
Youre joking again, right? Your level plate is presumably the round plate of the MGR model. Theres no lift, since theres no force acting perpendicular to said level plate.
======================
In an imitation there is a need for a force to produce an orbit, an engine to make the mgr go around. In an orbit there is no need for a force as it is simply an object with linear momentum going around without any resistance.
E. Swanson says:
Perhaps you think the Sun makes the Moons axis move up and down vs its orbital plane, but the Moons CG remains in that orbital plane, theres no up and down motion,
=========================
there is an up and down motion with respect to the ecliptic plane. When the orbit crosses that plane its called nodes, ascending node and descending node. Are you intentionally trying to be ‘thick’ here? Look up ascending and descending nodes of the moon.
B Hunter wrote:
Wow, are you being intentionally stupid? “Linear motion” is motion in one direction. The force that curves the Moon’s motion is gravity. The Moon is NOT PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to the Earth, except for the influence of gravity. That’s why the use of the Flat Earth MGR model can’t capture the reality of the motion, although my version DOES properly characterize the Moon’s rotation about it’s axis.
Your Red Herring about the Moon’s nodal crossing is in no way appropriate for the Earth’s MGR model that I suggested, a model which exhibits identical dynamics to a Moon MGR model with tilted axis and a frame which rotates about another axis perpendicular to the MGR. The Moon then rotates around that tilted axis, in the same way the Earth rotates around it’s tilted axis.
You, for some mysterious reason, continue to ignore the repeatedly verified astronomical facts.
E. Swanson says:
June 21, 2020 at 8:14 AM
B Hunter wrote:
In an orbit there is no need for a force as it is simply an object with linear momentum going around without any resistance.
Wow, are you being intentionally stupid? Linear motion is motion in one direction. The force that curves the Moons motion is gravity. The Moon is NOT PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to the Earth, except for the influence of gravity. Thats why the use of the Flat Earth MGR model cant capture the reality of the motion, although my version DOES properly characterize the Moons rotation about its axis.
Your Red Herring about the Moons nodal crossing is in no way appropriate for the Earths MGR model that I suggested, a model which exhibits identical dynamics to a Moon MGR model with tilted axis and a frame which rotates about another axis perpendicular to the MGR. The Moon then rotates around that tilted axis, in the same way the Earth rotates around its tilted axis.
You, for some mysterious reason, continue to ignore the repeatedly verified astronomical facts.
=========================================
Swanson you haven’t established any relevancy or uniqueness to any facts you have brought forward.
I agree I did not properly describe the tilted mgr properly. The tilted mgr I described was like a typical sketch illustrating the multiple positions of the moon as it goes around the vertical axis.
In order to properly illustrate the effect one must look at the design of an amusement park ride often called an Octopus.
You get the best imitation of the moon with the octopus is you lock the individual car bearings so the cars maintain a tidal locked rigid view of the central axis.
But having actually free swinging cars is what makes the Octopus the best barf ride in the park. The reason you need to lock the individual car bearings is because you have gravity perpendicular to the centripetal force of spinning machine which causes the cars to rotate like crazy. For the moon the centripetal force is the force of gravity and is parallel so locking the bearings on the cars does not demonstrate that effect as it exists with the earth moon arrangement but short of designing and launching a new moon far beyond the earth’s atmosphere thats about as close as you can come.
You call the ascending and descending nodes of the moon arbitrarily a red herring. You can’t even believe the words that describe them so much you couldn’t even repeat the words ascending and descending in your post.
You haven’t even attempted to explain why they aren’t relevant to the tilt of the moon WRT to its orbital plain.
And you are incorrect about equating it to earth’s tilt. The moon has a tilt relative to it orbit caused by the gravitational pulls parallel to the ecliptic plane. The earth has no such tilt as its orbital plane is identical to the ecliptic plane.
The moon is elongated along the line of the mean gravitational pull of the earth and sun, which is the ecliptic plane. Friction related to the elongation keeps the moon from spinning on its own axis like a ball on a string.
B Hunter wrote:
That’s because the “non-spinners” refuse to accept the fact that the Moon rotates once an orbit WRT THE SUN, exhibiting varying illumination of all sides as it does so.
Hunter continues:
The Moon’s orbit results in crossing the Ecliptic twice each orbit. Then, twice a year, a node might line up with the Sun-Earth vector, so there’s the possibility of a Lunar Eclipse. You haven’t explained why the nodal crossings are significant.
Hunter further wrote more non-sense:
Did you mean to write “The Moon’s orbit”? The Moon is nearly spherical, thus it’s not “elongated”. And what do you mean by “friction related to the elongation”, there’s no such force IMHO. Perhaps you are thinking about precession, which is entirely different physics.
E. Swanson, your humble opinion rings true because we have no evidence of any off-center wobble like that.
Being off center would not lock the rotation in the absence of friction, his argument comes back to mainstream tidal locking when he says “Friction related to the elongation keeps the moon from spinning”.
E. Swanson says:
Thats because the non-spinners refuse to accept the fact that the Moon rotates once an orbit WRT THE SUN, exhibiting varying illumination of all sides as it does so.
================================================
Thats right Swanson its called an orbit. A rotation round like a string. Do it in your living room with one light on and it will look just like that.
=============================
=================================
E. Swanson says:
The Moons orbit results in crossing the Ecliptic twice each orbit. Then, twice a year, a node might line up with the Sun-Earth vector, so theres the possibility of a Lunar Eclipse. You havent explained why the nodal crossings are significant.
================================================
thats correct it goes up and down above and below the ecliptic to which the gravitational pull from the alignment of the earth and sun establishes its rotation on that plane.
=============================
=================================
The moon is elongated along the line of the mean gravitational pull of the earth and sun, which is the ecliptic plane. Friction related to the elongation keeps the moon from spinning on its own axis like a ball on a string.
Did you mean to write The Moons orbit? The Moon is nearly spherical, thus its not elongated. And what do you mean by friction related to the elongation, theres no such force IMHO. Perhaps you are thinking about precession, which is entirely different physics.
============================
Its the force that creates tidal locking Swanson.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/tidfrict.html
“Do it in your living room with one light on and it will look just like that.”
Exactly.
Because the ball spun once on its own axis per rev. for day/night cycle sunrise/sunset. Or you could change frames and say the light bulb orbited the ball.
Now change the orbital mechanism to where the ball does NOT spin once per rev. but zero spin per rev. i.e curvilinear translation. No day/night cycle on the ball! The moon is not in curvilinear translation since it has a day night cycle, moon also rotates on its own axis. And, no, the sun does not orbit the moon. Check with Copernicus.
Revolution without axial rotation is defined as motion like a ball on a string, Ball4. Where do you get the idea it is defined otherwise?
Slide 6.
☺️
Slide 6 mentions nothing about revolution or orbiting.
See slide 6 picture, worth 1000 mentions.
I have seen the picture. That is not revolution without axial rotation.
Of course, because the non-spinners define something spinning as non-spinning. Have to reverse non-spinners spin comments to get the correct text book rigid body dynamics, pictured as in slide 6.
#2
Revolution without axial rotation is defined as motion like a ball on a string, Ball4. Where do you get the idea it is defined otherwise?
The picture on slide 6 showing no axial rotations per rev. (orbit).
You must be trolling. Very funny.
B Hunter wrote:
The Moon’s orbiting and rotation are separated, though the Moon’s rotation rate is indeed tidally locked to the Earth. The rotation is not like a ball on a string, where the ball might then also rotate around the string line. And, the Moon’s rotational axis is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, thus all the “non-spinner” 2-D orbital models are incorrect.
Note that your reference stated:
So, according to your reference, the Moon is rotating…
Swanson, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis whilst rotating around an external axis (at the center of the orbit), it is just rotating around an external axis (at the center of the orbit). There is no axial rotation in the case of a ball on a string.
Ball4 disagrees with the above statements. Do you agree with the statements, or do you also disagree?
This is all I am asking you. I am not asking you to extend it to the moon scenario. Just in the case of a simple ball on a string…what do you think?
Swanson asks:
”So, according to your reference, the Moon is rotating”
Absolutely yes, the moon rotates Swanson there is no doubt about that. The question is only does it rotate around its own axis or does it rotate around the COG of earth.
Inculcation is tough to overcome but lets walk through it simply. We will start with your concept of a moon that is not rotating.
———-
That moon will show all sides of itself to the earth in a single orbit. But it is NOT rotating from a fixed view somewhere out in the stars.
So I assume you agree with this call it step one in the analysis.
Step 2 analysis: From the perspective of the earth this hypothetical moon is rotating in the opposite direction of the rotation of the moon’s orbit. It appears to be rotating from the perspective of the earth and does not appear to be rotating from the perspective of the stars.
So do you agree with step 2?
Step 3
Now lets create a rotation. What science says in this case the gravity of the earth via gravitational frictional forces will cause the moon to start to rotate. This will appear to be a rotation from the stars and the hypothetical moon will appear to be slowing down its rotation from the perspective of the earth.
We OK with Step 3?
Step 4
The moon will continue to speed up its rotation from the perspective of the stars. And continue to slow from the perspective of the earth until there is no rotation from the perspective of the earth.
At this point in time you acknowledge that from your point of view is now the moon is rotating synchronously with the earth’s orbit.
We OK with Step 4?
Conclusion:
You claim it is rotating on its own axis and acknowledge it was earth’s gravity that caused it (I think but am not sure because you were questioning gravitational forces causing a sphere to rotate but I did provide a link to you on that)
We claim that the moon is now rotating on the COG of earth and not rotating on its own axis. This hypothetical moon we just walked though started out with zero rotation from the stars had its origins in forces of gravity from the COG of earth.
Non-spinner argument for the latter perspective.
Engineers do that kind of stuff for a living as they actually have to build stuff that rotates. So the applicable model for that is Fig. 2(b) of Madhavi’s rigid body dynamics outline for engineers. Engineers who get this one wrong can’t build stuff.
If they try using astronomer definitions of rotation they will end up with the earth orbiting around the moon instead of the correct way of the moon orbiting around the earth.
So why is this issue upsidedown for astronomers?
I would venture to guess its because of tradition. Astronomers are trying to find the ultimate answers of the universe and they are a long ways off of describing either a beginning or a destination and having little science to support either the creation or the end of the universe they lack an anchor point. They select stars and don’t recognize that galaxies are rotating and causing such fixed points and being only accurate enough to judge rotation in our solar neighborhood.
Engineers though build stuff from science we understand. They have to get it right. Lives, livelihoods, and utility demand they get it right.
Further, many astronomer descriptions of the above talk about the moon spinning down to a single spin in time with the orbit. However, that ignores the example we just walked through.
swannie…”thats not what happens with the Moon. Its easily observed that as the Moon presents successive Full Moon views, there is variation in the amount of the North Pole visible”.
Has it occurred to you that lunar polar libration is due to the Earth’s 23 degree tilt to it’s orbital plane? Since the Moon has no axis of rotation it is inferred with an imaginary axis perpendicular to the Lunar orbital plane, which is tilted 5 degrees to the Earth’s orbital plane. Of course, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23 degrees to its orbital plane.
Gordo blurted out:
Hardly, since it’s not true. Furthermore, you then wrote:
No, the Moon’s axis has been determined to be located at an offset of 6.68 degrees WRT your “imaginary axis” perpendicular to the orbital plane. That’s why the assertion by you and the rest of the “non-spinners” that the Moon has no axis of rotation is clearly incorrect.
Swanson, the moon’s “axial tilt” has been thoroughly discussed already. Scroll up and find it, or search the thread for the terms “axial tilt” or “obliquity”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the left is just revolving CCW, like our moon. The moon on the right is revolving CCW whilst also rotating on its own axis CW once per orbit.
To the Spinners, the moon on the right is just revolving CCW. Hence why they think the moon on the left is also rotating on its own axis CCW once per orbit.
The problem for the Spinners is, revolution is defined as motion like the moon on the left, like a ball on a string…not motion like the moon on the right.
Description:
Yep thats how Michael Crichton story unweaves in State of Fear with declarations in science papers not tested in the study.
Thats truly the sad state of affairs on this blog from some of its regulars. They accept as science anything a scientist might say whether its been derived scientifically or not.
Evidence of that is abundance is all the so-called evidence is just like the one above. . . .a statement.
where the sad part comes in is how easy it is to convince you of something if say my statements match your political and religious viewpoints.
As suggested by Judith Curry on her blog thats a science more associated with sociology than astronomy and akin to celebrity worship.
Here is that definition of revolution again:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“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.”
Motion as depicted by the moon on the left.
So spinning motion like the moon on the left by def. because per DREMT source “When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin” & there is no such axial axis for the non-spinning revolving moon on the right thus the non-spinners incorrectly view an object like a revolving ball on a string also possessing axial spin as non-spinning.
Madhavi Fig. 2(b) represents rotation about an external axis with one axial rotation per orbit (left moon) which is viewed by the non-spinners incorrectly as zero axial rotations per orbit.
Non-spinners fail the astronomy lab course and the lecture material.
Case closed.
The moon on the left is just revolving, by definition. It is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
The moon on the right is the way the Spinners see a moon that is just revolving. However, that motion is not a rotation about an external axis.
So the Spinners are wrong. Case closed.
Ball4 says:
When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin
========================================
Ball4 did you notice the conditional ”when”?
Yes bill. The case is closed. DREMT lost. As Svante points out, DREMT’s own source concurs the moon is rotating about its axis.
Actually ALL DREMT’s astronomical sources concur the moon is rotating about its axis.
Sure, the link says what it says. After all, most sources will tell you (erroneously) that the moon rotates on its own axis. However, I was using the GIF animations to illustrate a point. The Spinners are proven wrong as at 7:18 am.
NASA ISS Flight Director: “If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
If Earth only sees one side of Moon, Moon is orbiting (revolving), not rotating about its axis.
ClintR’s NASA guy Robert Frost 2016: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
“Imagine it this way your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving. If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating. If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating. Thats what the ISS does.”
All DREMT’s astronomical sources concur with Frost. DREMT has lost. Resistance is futile.
Yes, in Frost’s full quote he goes on to contradict himself…and he believes the moon rotates on its own axis. Well, he can’t get it right all the time.
Still, his definitions of revolution and axial rotation support the Non-Spinners, as written. Walking in a circle around your friend would be motion like the moon on the left.
bill hunter says:
June 15, 2020 at 4:48 PM
Ball4 says:
When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin
========================================
Ball4 did you notice the conditional when?
p.s. obviously that flew over Ball4’s head at about 50,000 feet.
bill, get your head out of the clouds, come on back down to earth with logical, legitimate arguments. Imagination easy, proper experiment hard.
Ball4 its really hard to get anywhere near your prospective position considering just one logical argument.
If say I was able to rocket off the moons surface and suspend myself in space above the moon, look back at the moon see the exact spot I took off from and continue to see that spot for my entire life.
The conclusion would be either the moon was not spinning on its own axis and instead orbiting on me at the same rate I turned to watch the spot, or that it would be spinning on its axis and I would be orbiting the moon at exactly the same rate.
Can you think of another explanation? If so state it clearly.
bill, canceling gravity means the moon would depart the vicinity of the earth; the earth depart the vicinity of the sun. You can do better than that.
who said anything about cancelling gravity?
“suspend myself in space above the moon”
Ball4 says:
suspend myself in space above the moon
=============================
Somewhat like a lunar module preparing to land vertically? I don’t think the moon mission cancelled gravity. Maybe I should call them and ask them that. . . .hmmm, on second thought why don’t you?
“Somewhat like a lunar module preparing to land vertically?”
So now bill is forced to change to: If say I was able to rocket off the moon’s surface and somewhat like a lunar module preparing to land vertically above the moon, look back at the moon see the exact spot I took off from and continue to see that spot for my entire life.
Conclusion would be you shortly run out of fuel and land, rather abruptly, and then stay there, if you survive, for the rest of your entire life until supplies run out, observe the moon is spinning on its own axis as one of the more brilliant stars traverses the moon’s sky & if supplies last, rises and sets, repeatedly as the terminator passes by your spot. Clear? Crystal.
Ball 4 must have just fallen off the turnip truck.
Ever hear of inflight refueling?
Works great in Earth Atm. not so much just above the rotating on its own axis Moon.
Ball4 then you are now backtracking on its impossibility?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team quotes:
“In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether.”
Its own axis then.
“Its own axis” refers to the center of mass of the body.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis = the moon does not rotate about its center of mass.
An external axis = e.g the Earth/moon barycenter, which the moon revolves around.
Svante says:
In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether.
Its own axis then.
=====================================
Everybody should carefully notice that one rotation of the earth around the sun is on an axis that is 23.5degrees different than independent spin of the earth. If it weren’t we wouldn’t have seasons.
But if the independent spin ended the earth would take on an equator in alignment with the ecliptic plane.
bill hunter says: “But if the independent spin ended the earth would take on an equator in alignment with the ecliptic plane.”
That’s exactly correct. And the side facing Sun when the axial rotation ended would always face Sun. The other side would be in perpetual darkness. The Earth would be orbiting, but no longer rotating about its axis.
Global weather patterns would be drastically altered….
If the moon rotates on its own axis
and if the moon orbits around the earth,
the moon will expose all its sides to the earth.
So we have two premises and a conclusion that follows directly from the two premises. A classic syllogism.
Since the moon does not expose all its sides to the earth and its true the moon orbits around the earth instead of the other way.
Therefore: The moon does not rotate on its own axis
DREMT astronomical source: “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.”
ClintR NASA source: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
bill has provided no astronomical source supporting his position.
ball4…”NASA source: The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
You provide an appeal to authority as your evidence? NASA is obviously wrong, it is not possible for the Moon to show only one face to the Earth through an orbit and rotate on its axis at the same time.
What more proof do you require? Presume a circular orbit, for argument’s sake. Draw a radial line from centre of Earth through the Moon and allow the entire radial line to rotate 360 degrees. Does the portion of the radial line through the Moon break with radial line and rotate 360 degrees independently?
Nope. They both turn as a unit and that motion is called curvilinear translation, because all points on the radial line, including those on the portion through the Moon, orbit in concentric circles.
Gordon, in curvilinear translation there is no “turn”. That’s why they call it translation.
“They both turn as a unit” is correct once per orbit or the radial line would be severed like a ball on a string; both earth and the moon rotate on their own axis as do all known astronomical objects. And it is not an appeal to authority when the authority includes experimental evidence which both NASA and the astronomical source of DREMT provide.
“DREMT astronomical source”
Are you referring to Wikipedia? I just linked to that because the GIF was useful. As you can see, the moon on the left is revolving, which means rotating about an external axis. The moon on the right, which is the Spinner idea of revolution, is not rotating about an external axis. So the Spinners are wrong, because their concept of revolution does not agree with all definitions of it that we have come across.
And that settles the argument in the Non-Spinners favor.
DRsEMT, You repeat another garbled description of the “spinner” point of view. The Moon shown on the LH graphic is both revolving (orbiting) around the Earth and rotating about it’s axis. The RH graphic shows the Moon revolving (orbiting), but not rotating, which is not the concept of the “spinners”.
You have admitted that there’s a fixed “line” thru the Moon’s CM which points in a fixed direction, which defines an axis of rotation. Yet, you continue to ignore the facts which provide proof that there is actually rotation around that axis.
Learn some physics, TROLL.
“The RH graphic shows the Moon revolving (orbiting), but not rotating”
As you Spinners see it..see, you are agreeing with me, Swanson.
I repeat: The moon on the right, which is the Spinner idea of revolution, is not a rotation about an external axis. So the Spinners are wrong, because their concept of revolution does not agree with all definitions of it that we have come across.
It’s quite simple, Swanson.
1) Revolution is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
2) The way spinners see revolution is not a rotation about an external axis (see the moon on the right).
3) So the Spinners are wrong.
Correct, E. Swanson, DREMT’s case is lost & closed because all of DREMT’s astronomical sources (so far) agree with DREMT own source per Svante “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.”
DREMT has not posted even one astronomical source or any experimental evidence (e.g. video) that agrees with the non-spinners. Until DREMT does so, the case need not be reopened.
The issue was settled in favor of the Non-Spinners just over 100 years ago now.
Repeating discussions for the benefit of others may be useful, though.
Hence, why we are here. Plus, the psychology of people like Ball4 is fascinating to study. Always an added bonus.
When you only see one side of the orbiting object, from the center of the orbit, the object is not rotating about its axis.
If an object is rotating about its axis, you would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit.
Idiots can not understand how simple it is. That’s why they’re idiots.
ClintR says:
“If an object is rotating about its axis, you would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit.”
As indeed you do from the normal inertial reference frame, the reference frame of the stars.
A sheer human force of pure, unadulterated point-missing.
And, Svante blantantly changes the viewing point from “center of the orbit”, to “the reference frame of the stars”.
Just another example of their need to pervert reality to fit their false religion.
ball4…”Gordon, in curvilinear translation there is no “turn”. That’s why they call it translation”.
Of course there is a curve in translation. When a mass translated in a rectilinear motion on the Earth’s surface, are you claiming the Earth’s surface does not curve?
If I could move on the Equator right around the planet, I would be moving all parts of my body in a straight line so all my parts followed parallel lines. In essence, I would orbit the Earth with all of my parts moving in a parallel lines but I would complete a circle.
Seems to me there is not a whole lot of difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation in a larger context with the exception that translation is usually with reference to a 2-D plane. If a point moves along the x-axis without rotation they call it rectilinear translation. If the motion is in a circle around the origin it is called curvilinear translation.
I claim that the Moon orbits in a flat plane without local rotation about an axis at the Earth’s centre and is the same thing as the circle I just mentioned. Imagine a small man walking around a circle on the x-y plane and he is walking CCW. His left shoulder always points to the centre of the circle and he is not rotating about his COG.
In fact, if you have a circle touching the x-axis at 0,0, and you set two bodies in motion so one moves in a positive direction along the x-axis, and one follows the circle, what’s the difference? All parts of either body move in parallel paths wrt the definition of their configurations.
ClintR says:
“And, Svante blantantly changes the viewing point from ‘center of the orbit’, to ‘the reference frame of the stars'”.
Yeah, from a rotating reference frame to the only universal one, where rotation is measured by Foucault’s pendulum
and the Coriolis effect and precession are not caused by strange new forces.
Svante, regardless of reference frame, the Spinners conception of revolution is wrong. It really is that simple.
“When a mass translated in a rectilinear motion on the Earth’s surface, are you claiming the Earths surface does not curve?”
Gordon 11:55pm, the surface curves. As you write, the mass translates not rotates in curvilinear translation. Your man is not in rectilinear translation, his left shoulder always points to the centre of the circle since the evidence is he is rotating about his COG once per orbit of the centre.
Just like DREMT’s source evidence confirms for Gordon as Svante points out: “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.”
And ClintR’s source evidence confirms for Gordon: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
DREMT, ClintR, bill, and Gordon have yet to find an astronomical source with any evidence that confirms the moon does not rotate on its own axis as the non-spinners erroneously claim; that case remains closed.
Tomic and Tesla are suddenly ignored, as are all those definitions of revolution that are so troublesome for the Spinners…
Tesla is not an astronomical source, that case is closed.
Not sure what Tomic is exactly but Tomic apparently does need to learn from DREMT’s source evidence:
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.”
and Tomic should come to understand ClintR’s source evidence: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
…and by “evidence” you have: somebody wrote that the moon rotates on its own axis, and you believe them.
Ball4 says:
“When a mass translated in a rectilinear motion on the Earth’s surface, are you claiming the Earths surface does not curve?”
Gordon 11:55pm, the surface curves. As you write, the mass translates not rotates in curvilinear translation.
=========================
Actually Ball4 from the standpoint of rotating on ones own axis it is indeed curvilinear translation that appears to be happening.
What is happening in relationship to that internal axis all the particles are moving very fast in one direction along a curved path around the earth. So yes from the standpoint of the internal axis only indeed it is curvelinear translation. But since it goes around the earth its a rotation around the earth.
Congratulations you got it now all you have to do is tell that evil twin of yours to bug off.
DREMT, that case is closed based on all the evidence passing inspection.
bill, so yes from the standpoint of the internal axis only indeed it is curvilinear translation if the object is just translating on a curve. However all the evidence shows “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.” so curvilinear translation does not apply for the moon or any known unpowered astronomical object.
Not going to try the transmographer then, Ball4?
Already been tried DREMT, case closed, confirms that your source is correct “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.” and confirms an object always pointing N while revolving about external axis as in your source(s) link is not rotating on its own axis which is curvilinear translation only.
The transmographer confirms that an object that is rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis displays different sides to the center of the orbit, whilst it revolves, unlike our moon.
It also confirms that an object which is rotating about an external axis and not rotating on its own axis, moves as per our moon.
Of course, DREMT 9:08am simply believes the words of others that didn’t post up the correct input. Case against DREMT is closed, DREMT was proven wrong by all DREMT & ClintR sources including when the transmographer input is done correctly & posted; viz.:
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.”
“The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
Now Ball4 is just lying about the transmographer. Shameless.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
A sheer human force of pure, unadulterated point-missing.
==============================
Hilarious how these guys keep getting confused and come back with a . . . .but the moon is rotating reply. LMAO!
For the 1000th time (probably underestimated) the moon rotates, the question isn’t if the moon rotates the question is what axis does it rotate on.
Probably never will sink in.
According to DREMT there are two axes the moon rotates about. Can you remember what DREMT named these two axes bill? Need a refresher on that closed case?
I have to assume you are talking about the one the moon rotates on located in the COG of the earth. The other one is the one the moon may have rotated on billions of years ago, but it rusted up.
Bill…”I have to assume you are talking about the one the moon rotates on located in the COG of the earth”.
Just a reminder, the problem as originally posted claimed the Moon does not rotate about its axis.
bill for a refresher, DREMT correctly named the moon’s two axes of rotation external and axial. Per DREMT’s astronomical source evidence these two axes result in: “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.”
Ball4 says:
bill for a refresher, DREMT correctly named the moons two axes of rotation external and axial. Per DREMTs astronomical source evidence these two axes result in: Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
===============================================
And your take is DREMT’s source saying that is scientific proof the statement is correct?
or
Are you trying to impugn DREMT’s source on the basis he has to be either 100% or zero percent correct with nothing in between.
Excuse me I am just trying to figure out exactly what is going on between those two ears of yours.
What I’m writing is evidence supports DREMT’s source: “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.” & so far, DREMT has no astronomical source supporting DREMT’s non-spinner views so DREMT has lost. Case closed.
Why would an astronomical source be interested in the question Ball4?
If one has no interest one usually goes with the inculcation they receive. . . .like you do 100% of the time. Or you wouldn’t have made the above statement as your sole evidence.
Quote sources are DREMT’s & ClintR’s evidence bill. Both disagree with their own sources; you would think they’d find sources that agree with them but so far have not, that’s a reason their case remains closed.
Ball4 says:
Quote sources are DREMTs & ClintRs evidence bill. Both disagree with their own sources; you would think theyd find sources that agree with them but so far have not, thats a reason their case remains closed.
===================================
You are wrong. DREMT has provided the physics of objects held by things able to resist existing forces that demonstrates the axis for the moon is external. Additionally its confirmed by simple syllogism:
If the moon rotates on its own axis
and if the moon orbits around the earth,
the moon will expose all its sides to the earth.
So we have two premises and a conclusion that follows directly from the two premises. A classic syllogism.
Only problem is the conclusion is wrong in the case of the moon and earth. So one of the premises has to be wrong. This is basically Logic 101, first chapter.
Finally we have offered several experiments, bowls of water, loose globes on mgrs, transmographer tool, a ball on a string, all to demonstrate that you cannot rotate the moon on its own axis without exposing all sides of the moon to the earth.
And what have you guys offered in opposition? Nothing!
I have videos! And theory.
The video of ball on the string rotates once on its axis per orbit, each piece of the LP rotated once its own axis before disintegration & the transmographer tool confirms it. The moon, Gordon’s coin rotates on their own axis per the sources DREMT and ClintR have found. There is really nothing more needed as you have an experimentally proven theory in front of you, well, except a personal understanding of rigid body dynamics having passed a course in the subject. There are plenty of astronomical sources over at your local college library to study & labs, bill. They are where YOU find them.
Ball4, these are ftop_t’s instructions for using the transmographer. Please let me know what you disagree with:
“Intrigued by the the argument that an object on a carousel is rotating on its axis as well, I determined it should be easy to model.
I found this site that has an activity tab which allows you to rotate an object against either a center point (like a carousel) or around its own center of mass (like a rotating planet).
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
If an object is rotating around its axis while it is rotating around a center axis you would apply both of these transformations in order to model the movement. This site let’s you do just that.
For example, transform a shape “around a point” (0,0) 180 degrees for the carousel movement and then transform the shape “around its center” 180 degrees for the synchronously rotation around its axis.
If you use the site below and rotate the object around a center point and then rotate it around its axis, the result is not consistent with a locked horse on a carousel. The horse would be facing backwards from its direction. This is applying the geometry of transformations. An object like a horse on a carousel is transforming around a center point. It is not transforming around its center axis.
If you use this site and only apply the transformation rule for rotating around a center point and then claim that the transformation around its axis is imputed in that movement, you are taking credit for a geometric transformation (around its axis) that has not been applied within the model.
It doesn’t matter if you stand on the center point, on the object, or outside of the area of movement; perception may be different, but the geometric transformation rules to model the movement are the same.”
“these are ftop_t’s instructions”
What are DREMT’s instructions? Show your work. Be sure your operation shows one orbit with one rotation of the object on its axis per orbit or alternatively just curvilinear translation of the object per orbit. Ftop_t’s work doesn’t show that was done.
“For example, transform a shape “around a point” (0,0) 180 degrees for the carousel movement and then transform the shape “around its center” 180 degrees for the synchronously rotation around its axis.”
Ftop_t’s instructions show you half of an orbit without axial rotation, “and then” it adds in the axial rotation so you can see the result of half an orbit with axial rotation. Use the “around a point” section for the orbital motion and then check the “around center” button to add in the axial rotation.
A ROTATION and then a ROTATION. No translation in ftop_t’s work DREMT, that is not proper orbital motion. But you can do it! I know you can.
A rotation around an external axis (which is how revolution is defined) and then axial rotation.
DREMT ftop_t did not show his work for proper translation ensuring the orbital radius is constant, you have a perfect opportunity to improve on that work, I just know you can. When you get done properly curvilinear translation will be as shown in Fig. 2a. Show your work.
“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.”
Ball4, why do you simply lie about what other people have said?
I might be motivated to put a historic landmark plaque on it but rumor has it the one they are calling the rusted up axis of the moon may well have been at a different location.
If the moon was rotating about an external axis whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. But you do not have to take my word for that. Click on the link below, follow ftop_ts instructions for using the transmographer tool, and prove it to yourself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329311
The “tidal locking” nonsense is as bogus as the “Moon rotating about its axis” concept. If Moon ever actually rotated about its axis, Earth’s gravity could not stop it. A reverse torque would be needed to stop axial rotation. Gravity cannot provide torque to a sphere. That was one of the few things Tim Folkerts got right, way upthread.
There is no proof Moon EVER rotated about its axis. But, there is proof it is not rotating today.
Both false concepts originated from astrology, which is nothing more than a false religion.
“A reverse torque would be needed to stop axial rotation.”
Applied over eons, tidal forces can accomplish just such a task, as observed in many unpowered astronomical objects. Today the tidal forces are causing our moon to fall forward accelerating and moving away from the earth as measured by the Apollo laser reflectors.
ClintR, your source has all the evidence, consult/learn with/from him, not a blog.
Observations made by adherents to a false religion does not constitute science. Believers that the Moon is moving away from Earth at about 3.5 cm/year would be amazed to know Moon could not then be billions of years (eons) old.
But, idiots can’t do the math. Just like they can’t understand an orbiting object, like the “chalk circle” or ball on a string, does not imply axial rotation.
Earth’s gravity cannot provide torque to Moon, and Earth’s gravity cannot increase Moon’s tangential velocity. There is no physics that supports such nonsense.
But idiots can’t think for themselves. That’s why they’re idiots.
ClintR
The 3.5 cm/year is a measured value not a belief and it would not at all indicate how long the Moon has existed.
Do the math.
3.8 cm/year. In 4,500,000,000 years that would equal 17,100,000,000 cm. Convert that to kilometers you get 171,000 kilometers.
The current distance of the Earth to the Moon is 384,000 kilometers away. The rate the Moon moves away is not a constant but if you take the 3.8 as an average it just means the Moon would have been 213,000 kilometers away from the Earth when it was formed.
If I am not mistaken the 3.8cm per year is from just the earth’s days getting longer transferring spin energy to the moon.
When the moon was spinning is it thought that moon spin energy was also being transferred to the moon’s orbit.
Seems to make sense since the favorite theory is the moon started at zero difference from the earth as a result of a collision with a Mars sized object.
Exactly my point, Norman. Moon would have to have been much closer to Earth. And, to have been so close to Earth, it would have had to have much higher tangential velocity. Then, to be in it’s current orbit, it would have much less tangential velocity.
How does adding your imaginary “tidal locking” energy cause less velocity?
bill hunter
I think the continuous rotation of the Moon as it orbits the Earth causes confusion in you.
I have proposed this to others. Let me see how you respond.
Remove the circular motion from the equation and go to a square motion.
Imaging a Moon moving around the Earth in a square path instead of circular. This will help you understand that the Moon has to rotate at the same rate it orbits in order to show the Earth just one face. With a square orbit it is easier to see.
In this imaginary system, have the Moon moving CW. Start at any corner and move the Moon along the path. It will only rotate at corners to help in the understanding. The same face is seen from Earth on the straight path. Now at a corner, if the Moon is not rotated 1/4 turn CW you will see a new face. Only by rotating the Moon can you see the same face around the square. Not sure it will help you but it is what it is.
Not sure why a group is so set on insisting the Moon cannot rotate and orbit at the same time and that is why we see the same side from Earth. It works in all examples given. I have given many links showing it is so. Satellites must rotate to keep the same side pointing to the Earth and it is well established.
I am not sure any thing else will work. Contrarians reject standard evidence and logic and it seems as if nothing will every change their contrarian thought process.
Not sure why a group is so set on insisting the Moon cannot rotate and orbit at the same time and that is why we see the same side from Earth. It works in all examples given. I have given many links showing it is so. Satellites must rotate to keep the same side pointing to the Earth and it is well established.
I am not sure any thing else will work. Contrarians reject standard evidence and logic and it seems as if nothing will every change their contrarian thought process.
===================================
You don’t understand the non-spinner position Norman. Non-spinners are not saying the moon isn’t rotating. It rotates as it orbits.
Norman, if the moon was rotating about an external axis (revolving) whilst simultaneously rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Experiment for yourself using the rotation tools in the transmographer I linked to.
DREMT
I find quite the opposite of what you describe when I used the Transmographer tool. It shows the same as what most scientists are saying. I had the square rotate at 45 degrees as if moved around the center (orbit). It certainly had to rotate to keep the same face toward the center. You can easily see the rotation as it only proceeds one motion per click.
I am not understanding why this is so difficult for you to see.
If you would overcome your contrarian program you could understand that an orbiting body can keep the same face toward the center if it rotates at the same rate it orbits (one full rotation on axis per orbit). E. Swanson pointed it out with satellites. In order for them to keep pointing toward the Earth they are required to rotate at the same rate they orbit the Earth. It is not even a question to debate. It is a confirmed reality except in the Contrarian Universe.
https://books.google.com/books?id=K9Q5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=do+weather+satellites+rotate+once+on+their+axis+per+orbit?&source=bl&ots=WVsjGfNi4S&sig=ACfU3U3vNrrRUCp7TaFlE1H3K184KREuQw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8r-ikm47qAhXYK80KHYeYBF4Q6AEwD3oECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=do%20weather%20satellites%20rotate%20once%20on%20their%20axis%20per%20orbit%3F&f=false
Please attempt to read some of this. The Nimbus satellite has spin control so that it rotated once per orbit to keep its instruments always facing Earth.
Norman, the “rotate around a point” is only one motion – revolving/orbiting.
There is a separate option to rotate the object on its own axis. Check the “around center” box and then click “rotate” to do that.
What happens when you combine both motions, Norman?
The correct answer is that you see all sides of the object from inside the orbit.
Rotate around a point (0,0) 45 degrees (1) and then rotate the object on its own axis 45 degrees (2). Keep doing that, 1,2,1,2,1,2 etc. and you should see what I mean.
If not, I guess there is no helping some people.
DREMT
You are a true contrarian and nothing will alter your incorrect view point. You keep it just to be a contrarian. Not factually based. Just a course required by contrarians. You have to oppose established ideas because it is the nature of a contrarian.
I gave you a link to the Nimbus satellite. In order for the instruments to constantly face Earth it HAS TO ROTATE ONCE PER ORBIT! Real world data does not change a contrarian view.
You can peddle your contrarian views but no matter how insistent you are that you are correct, the reality is you are not!
Just like Gordon Robertson’s hero Peter Duesberg. He never accepted HIV caused AIDS regardless of the mountains of evidence that it does. A contrarian cannot change an incorrect view. They will argue it is correct and ignore reality clearly showing they are wrong.
Please use the transmographer as I directed, Norman.
Hmmm, definitely backtracking to rotating chalked circles and welded globes physically rotating on their centers in an independent motion.
DREMT and bill hunter
Are you both ignoring reality? Reality is that in order for a satellite to keep facing the Earth continuously it must rotate once per orbit. It is clearly written. They build the satellite to rotate in such a fashion.
Denial of reality is a contrarian way. Since the two of you contrarians are so convinced of your own opinions (reinforcing each other like a house of cards) why now see if you could convince the real world engineers who design satellites to rotate in order to keep the instruments facing the Earth. Tell them they are wrong and don’t know how to design a satellite.
It does seen contrarians are incapable of realizing they are incorrect regardless of the evidence.
#2
Please use the transmographer as I directed, Norman.
DREMT
Better yet would be for you to tell engineers who build satellites that they don’t know what they are talking about when they intentionally have a satellite rotate once per orbit to keep the instruments always pointing toward the Earth.
I will stick with actual people designing things than a contrarian peddler on a blog.
So when you convince the satellite designers they are totally wrong about what they think I will consider that your contrarian opinions have some merit. Until then you can act like an expert and interpret your tool as you believe it is. I don’t see what you do, but your incorrect opinions will not change regardless of actual evidence and proofs. I am not sure what is a better proof than you than satellites designed to always face the Earth as they orbit around.
I am not sure why real world evidence fails to convince you.
#3
Please use the transmographer as I directed, Norman.
Norman says:
DREMT and bill hunter
Are you both ignoring reality? Reality is that in order for a satellite to keep facing the Earth continuously it must rotate once per orbit. It is clearly written. They build the satellite to rotate in such a fashion.
=======================
I don’t know who disagrees with that Norman. The ‘non-spinners’ note that the moon rotates around the earth. Call it orbit or revolves whatever it results in the same thing that rotating does. You can separate them anymore than you can make a chalked circle rotate on its own axis on a stalled mgr.
DREMT
Please quit being a braindead contrarian and tell the engineers that design satellites that they are wrong. When you can convince them I said I would consider your absurd claims. Until then, continuing the same posts is a wasted effort on your part. Your Contrarian Opinions on the issue will remain incorrect until you can prove the satellite designers are wrong. Repeating the same thing will not make you correct.
bill hunter
You are clearly wrong in your definition of terms and you do not know what I was posting.
Your flawed understanding. YOU: “I dont know who disagrees with that Norman. The non-spinners note that the moon rotates around the earth. Call it orbit or revolves whatever it results in the same thing that rotating does.”
No the Moon does not “rotate” around the Earth. it revolves or orbits. Rotation is an independent action by the Moon on its own axis.
A satellite that always faces the Earth is designed to rotate once per orbit to keep the instruments constantly facing the Earth.
The satellite both revolves (orbits) the Earth and also ROTATES once time on its axis per orbit to maintain the continuous instruments facing the Earth.
One fact is obvious about you Contrarians. Seems at least one thing you all share. You will oppose established views regardless of evidence. You also think this makes your incorrect views superior, wrong as they are.
Norman, why will you not just use the transmographer as I directed? What are you so afraid of!?
…and you are wrong, Norman, revolving is just another word for rotating about an axis that is external to the body. Once again:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“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.”
ClintR
There are many explanations on tidal locking on the web. It is only nonsense to you. Most scientifically literate people can understand the process when it is explained to them.
Norman, there are many explanations of astrology on the web. It’s all nonsense. Most scientifically literate people reject nonsense.
ClintR
I cannot help your inability to comprehend things when clearly explained. Your analogy is not very intelligent at all. Tidal locking is a logical and rational understanding of what happens to spinning bodies in interaction with each other. The explanation is logical and sensible. I am sorry to say it is your ignorance that does not allow you to understand the concept when explained. I think it is a sad state that you don’t even try to attempt an understanding yet in frustration, rather than admit you can’t understand it, you just reject is.
Norman, you had about 2 1/2 hours to search the web for some more nonsense to support your nonsense. Yet, all you could come back with is personal attacks and false innuendos.
Maybe your false religion is not working for you….
ClintR
Try this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmc5XqChJpY
Well, it fooled you.
But that’s not difficult based on the fact that you haven’t “studied general physics for many years”.
“Never” is also “many years”.
ball4…”“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.””
I guess you think if this bit of pseudo-science from Svante is repeated often enough that it will be true. That’s the same repetition/consensus being used in anthropogenic warming theory and the covid theory. In the latter, they have been repeating the same mantra now for nearly 40 years, that strands of RNA found in a human body come from a virus.
I have invited you to disprove this theory by using two coins. Either you have tried my experiment and seen the truth of it and you don’t want to admit it, or you won’t try it for fear of finding your statement above cannot possibly occur.
It is simply not possible for the Moon, always having one face toward the Earth, to rotate even one degree about its axis, let alone complete a full 360 degree rotation.
I have proved that not only with coins but with a radial line through the Moon from the Earth’s centre. That’s your reference line. If the Moon is rotating about its axis, the portion of the radial line through the Moon must rotate 360 degrees per orbit, meaning the near face must follow it. That means you have a rotating radial line with a portion of it turning through 360 degrees.
That obviously does not happen, the entire radial line remains intact with all points on the portion through the Moon turning in concentric circles (or concentric elliptical orbits).
That quote you clip is from DREMT astronomical source, Svante pointed it out.
I have read your coin experiment and seen the truth of it, Gordon. You had to rotate the orbiting coin with a hand once on its axis per orbit. For the radial line to remain uncut, the orbiting object has to rotate exactly once on its own axis like a ball on a string remaining unwrapped; and the moon.
Ball4 you come up with the stupidest ideas of all.
An iceskater or a running back, or a basketball player can put his hand, skate, or shoe down and execute a turn entirely around that hand, skate, or shoe while holding a ball in the other hand thats not turning in his/her hand that is playing the role of an internal axis. The axis is the hand, skate, shoe thats planted to facilitate a sharp turn.
Also one can sit on a stool holding a ball out away from him and spin on the stool.
But all you want to do is devise some pretzel logic of trying to make somebody spin their hand without a rotation around an external axis. Stupid. . . .Stupid. . . .Stupid. . . .
I think you ought to go back to arguing about chalked circles on the mgr’s spinning platform as spinning on their own axis because your arguments are getting ever more ridiculous.
Sure bill, still, Gordon has to use his hand to rotate the orbiting coin once on its axis per orbit.
thats right Ball4 all he has to do is grip the ball with an iron grip and rotate on the stool he is sitting on and his hand will carry the ball around the stool’s axis rotating it. If you want to rotate the ball while it’s in his iron grip you will have to first pry his fingers loose and turn the ball but then the same face will not be pointed at Gordon any more and you lose.
bill, Gordon’s iron grip rotates the ball once it’s axis which is what I just told you. More or less than once in rotation and THEN you will gave to pry it loose.
So you are claiming his hand is also rotating on the end of his wrist Ball4?
Rotates on own axis once per orbit. Points N,W,S,E. Chop off wrist so it and ball points N all during each orbit, that is curvilinear wrist translation, zero rotation on wrist’s own axis.
Motion as per the “moon on the right” is not “revolving without axial rotation”.
“Revolving without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”.
Wrong def. DREMT, moon on left points N,W,S,E, back to N as Gordon points out that means moon on left like his coin will on its own axis “rotate since (the radial lines) point in different directions”.
Moon on right always points N, Fig. 2a in that case “curvilinear translation” occurs while orbiting earth.
Revolution is not defined as per Madhavi Fig. 2(a). It is defined as per Fig. 2(b).
Both figures show an object revolving DREMT, one object is revolving in curvilinear translation so does not spin just translates; the other does spin. When you botch the definitions as do the non-spinners, something spinning is not spinning. Keep up the infotainment.
Only Fig. 2(b) shows revolution without axial rotation.
Only per the incorrect non-spinner def. where a rectangle spinning on its own axis N,W,S,E back to N is non-spinning each revolution. We get it DREMT, no sane reason to keep repeating non-spinners incompetence but it sure is entertaining.
“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.”
ball4…”…still, Gordon has to use his hand to rotate the orbiting coin once on its axis per orbit”.
I am emulating what Earth’s gravity does to the real Moon. Gravity does not rotate the Moon, it merely deviates the Moon from a linear path that culminates in the orbit.
You have not addressed my other point, that if you roll the movable coin around the stationary coin, the near face will then rotate about the movable coin’s axis and you could synchronize it to turn only once per orbit. However, the near face (with mark) will no longer face the centre of the other coin. It will rotate through a full 360 degrees, but not in one orbit if the coins are of different sizes.
Try it ball4. Mark the movable coin at one point and moving it around the stationary coin while keeping the mark always pointed to the centre of the other coin. Under those conditions, the mark never turns around the axis of the moving coin nor does the axis move around the mark. Tidal locking does not explain that synchronization.
That raises another question, what are the possibilities that the Moon’s rotation, if it ever had one, could rotate exactly once per orbit?
Gordon 7:07pm, I do that with my hand rotating the outer coin once on its own axis per orbit “keeping the mark always pointed to the centre of the other coin.” And so do you.
The possibility of the moon similarly rotating once on its own axis per orbit of earth is 100% as your coin experiment demonstrates.
Ball4 is definitely a lost cause.
Yep he must believe the orbiting coins sends out sensors to read where the inner coin is to tell the moon when to rotate on its own axis. the man in the moon must be really tech savvy.
ball4…”I have read your coin experiment and seen the truth of it, Gordon. You had to rotate the orbiting coin with a hand once on its axis per orbit”.
You failed to examine the motion correctly. The coin is not rotating about its centre, at no time does the near side of the moving coin facing the centre of the stationary coin rotate around its centre. Rather, each point on the portion of a radial line drawn through the moving coin, including the centre and the near face, moves in concentric circles around the centre of the stationary coin.
You spinners are claiming the near face rotates 360 degrees around the Moon’s axis. Prove it. You can’t, it’s not possible. The coins reveal that.
The motion I am applying to the moving coin is not a rotation. I am SLIDING the moving coin around the perimeter of the stationary coin to make it fit the orbit in the way the Moon orbits. To cause rotation, I would have to ROLL it around the stationary coin, therefore the near face would have to rotate 360 degrees around the coins centre and be pointing away from the stationary coin at some point.
Admittedly, I must re-orient the position of the moving coin as I slide it to keep the radial component through the coin pointed at the centre of the stationary coin. By doing that, I am emulating the effect of gravity on the momentum of the Moon.
The Moon’s instantaneous, linear, tangential momentum keeps the radial line moving while gravity keeps it from flying off in a tangential direction. The resultant is the orbit. At no time does the Moon have a rotational angular momentum about its axis since all points along the radial line are moving in concentric orbits around the Earth.
Replace the Earth-Moon system in a vertical plane with a bucket of water on a rope. Consider the bucket already moving at 6 o’clock so all the water is in the bucket. According to your theory, by 12 o’clock, the bucket should be pointed up the way since at exactly half orbit it should be half way around its rotation of 360 degrees about the bucket’s COG.
The bucket cannot point up the way since it is constrained by the rope. The only way for it to rotate would be for the bucket to wind itself around the rope. As it stands, however, the bucket would be upside-down at 12 o’clock and the only thing keeping the water in the bucket would be sufficient angular momentum on the bucket.
Even if you use a horizontal plane, the same thing applies. At some point, according to the no-spinner theory, the bucket has to wrap itself once around the rope.
The spinners are in total violation of rock solid logic.
If something spins on its axis something external to that object must follow the spinning object around to keep the same face.
Like you put you kid on a merry-go-round horse and the merry-go-round starts up. What do you see? LMAO!
If you want to keep your kid in your sights you have to run around following your kid on the merry go round. No if ands or buts.
That’s the definition of orbiting. To keep you kid next to you you have to orbit the merry-go-round at the same rate the merry-go-round goes around. It doesn’t matter if you fly, run, walk, drive a car, ride a bike.
It also doesn’t matter how fast the merry-go-round goes but you can watch your kid without moving if the merry-go-round isn’t spinning.
Reverse the situation and now you are in the donkey ride and your kid is going to ride a donkey. So you stand in the middle with the donkey’s harness while your kid ride around you. The donkey if the donkey is going CW your kid and the donkey will always show their right side. If the donkey is going CCW then you will always see their left side. If the donkey starts spinning while going around then you will see all sides.
Sheesh! I feel like a kindergarten teacher! LMAO!!!!
Makes sense. Its kindergarten science.
You guys are hopelessly lost down the denial river..
You’re right, bill…this is all so unbelievably simple and straightforward. At this stage I think they have just devoted too much time and energy to the debate to admit they’re wrong.
“You spinners are claiming the near face rotates 360 degrees around the Moon’s axis. Prove it. You can’t, it’s not possible. The coins reveal that.”
Gordon disproves Gordon’s own claim: “the bucket would be upside-down at 12 o’clock” having rotated on its own axis from upside-up to upside-down, one half complete rotation in one half revolution.
And again, with coins 8:00pm: the orbiting coin will “rotate since (the radial lines) point in different directions”.
Gordon is just a closet spinner in disguise proving the non-spinner position is clearly wrong.
Yes Nate in particular ”You have to be able to extrapolate.”
Obviously a huge gap in Nate’s education and understanding. Extrapolation is something we always do but don’t confuse it with science. When one extrapolates one wants to use all science and common sense, not just select science as Nate wants to do.
Synchronous rotation. LMAO! In more than 4000 posts nobody has identified a single useful purpose for such a bizarre idiom. Makes one think it most be something left over from astrology.
Fits right up there with someone calling child birth. . . .
reproductive coincidence.
The ball rotates on its axis once per orbit forced by Gordon’s hand. No hand, no rotation once.
ball4…”The ball rotates on its axis once per orbit forced by Gordons hand. No hand, no rotation once”.
Let’s look at rectilinear translation with a coin standing on its edge, or a ball4, or a cylinder. If the bottom of the coin, the ball, or the cylinder must remain facing the floor, neither can be rotated. You must slide them along the floor. The moment you rotate any of them they are ROLLING, which is rotation about a COG or axis.
That’s exactly what I claimed for the coin moving around the stationary coin. To keep the same face of the moving coin on the perimeter of the other coin, you must SLIDE it while adjusting the coin so the same face is pointing at the stationary coin. If you slide the moving coin and don’t adjust it, it will move off in a tangential direction, just like Moon would if the gravitational force was cut. By adjusting as I slide I am replicating the force of gravity.
On the other hand, the instant I begin to ROLL the moving coin, to cause a rotation about its axis, the near side begins to move away from the perimeter of the stationary coin. By the time I roll the coin 180 degrees, the near face is now on the other side of the stationary coin and pointing away from it.
On the other hand, the instant I begin to ROLL the moving coin, to cause a rotation about its axis more or less than once per orbit, the near side begins to move away from the perimeter of the stationary coin.
If Gordon begins to ROLL the moving coin, to cause a rotation about its axis exactly one rotation per orbit, the near side will not begin to move away from the perimeter of the stationary coin all the way around N,W,S,E back to N.
Just like ClintR’s NASA flight direstor source tried to teach Gordon: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.” Just like a ball on a string does one rotation on its own axis per orbit of the central point.
A ball on a string is just revolving, by definition.
The non-spinner defintion is clearly wrong, the revolving ball points N,W,S,E back to N once for each revolution.
The revolving ball points N,W,S,E and back to N because it is just revolving, by definition.
We get it DREMT, the spinning obect in your non-spinning claim doesn’t spin by incorrect definition.
No wrong Ball4. Its you that doesn’t get that the non-spinner position is that the object is not spinning on its own axis but instead is spinning around the axis at the center of its spin.
I do get it bill. It’s bill that doesn’t get that the non-spinner position is that the object is not spinning N,W,S,E back to N on its own axis but instead is spinning around the axis at the center of its spin.
Seems bill left out something important about compass points which is proof bill doesn’t get the non-spinner position is wrong.
A ball on a string points N,W,S,E and back to N because it is rotating about an external axis (revolving) and not rotating on its own axis.
Now that is clearly wrong DREMT. You remove all doubt your position is wrong. Your past obfuscation had left some doubt so you actually fooled some commenters.
“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.”
Proposed rotation definitions:
Independent rotation. Rotation occurring due to an unidentified cause or an identified cause that no longer is providing any forcing.
Dependent rotation. Rotation occurring due to an identified forcing that continues to exist.
Corollaries: Since forcings can be from any direction there is no scientific evidence that a rotation due to an identified forcing is in the same direction or a result of any past rotations from unidentified forcings. Thus one cannot conclude that a dependent rotation arose from a independent rotation as the dependent rotation has forces adequate to explain the rotation without external involvement.
Certainly there are forces to prevent dependent rotation when independent rotation is present; despite forces being present to create the dependent rotation in the absence of independent rotation. But it’s fundamentally wrong to conflate the two separate types of rotation and their cause.
Seems an obvious problem of limited understanding attacked forcefully by Dr. Madhavi.
Gee this gives me some motivation to finish my paper. But I will let y’all take some potshots at it first.
Are you writing a paper for publication? I didn’t know that there is a journal for Flat Earthers. If you can’t find one to accept your blurb, I suggest you could submit it to The Journal of Irreproducible Results..
Swanso starts trolling.
Swanson is right about one thing. An ad hominem is a potshot.
Well it was rather funny, surely you will see that if you read it out for yourself.
First a warmup: https://tinyurl.com/w3tc4dh
Now to clarify:
Svante continues trolling.
Did you not read his statements?
Surely bill will get the humour.
Maybe, maybe not.
Gordon, you rotate the coin on its own axis pointing N,W,S,E back to N each orbit.
kindergarten class is now open!
ball4…”Gordon, you rotate the coin on its own axis pointing N,W,S,E back to N each orbit”.
Let’s examine it. Place the moving coin above the stationary coin on table so it’s 6 o’clock (south) position is touching the stationary coin at 12 o’clock. Draw a radial line from the centre of stationary coin through 12 o’clock on the stationary coin then through 6 o’clock (south) on the moving coin, through its centre then up to 12 o’clock (north) on the moving coin.
Draw a line perpendicular to the radial line through the centre of the moving coin from west (9 o’clock) to east (3 o’clock). Now the moving coin is marked N, S, E and W. Your task, Mr. Phelps, if you choose to take it, is to move that coin around the stationary coin so that the radial line through both coins is aligned through 360 degrees.
Let’s see you do that while rotating the moving coin about its axis. It’s not possible. The portion of the radial line through the moving coin cannot be broken with tidal-locking, it must always align with the radial line from the stationary coin’s centre.
Naturally, during that process representing tidal-locking, the N, S, E, W cross-marking will APPEAR to rotate since they point in different directions. The cross cannot rotate, however, because there is nothing for it to rotate around. The apparent motion gives an illusion of rotation, it is actually the product of the curved path making up the orbit, which I call curvilinear translation.
The motion is the same as rectilinear translation for a distance then having the linear path begin to curve. In order to respect the mathematical laws defining a curve, when the curved portion begins the tangent to the curve at any point on the curve determines the parallelism of each point in the body. At each instant, each particle in the moving body is moving parallel to the tangent line at that point, meaning none of those points can rotate about a local axis.
For Svante, who will no doubt object to the radial lines aligning for an elliptical orbit. My example above is for two round coins but in the real Earth-Moon interaction, at the more eccentric parts of the orbit, the radial line component through the moving coin will move slightly so it is not fully aligned with the radial line from the centre of the coin.
That slight misalignment produces the libration effect but it needs to be noted that the Moon is not rotating, even during libration. There are no tangential forces or an angular momentum on the Moon to rotate it. Again, the radial line through the Moon points in the direction of a ‘component’ of the gravitational force at a small angle.
Obviously, there are no radial lines, the lines I created represent a force vector from Earth’s gravitational force, which does not act in a line but in a more complex field. In a circular orbit, that force is always along the radial line. However, in an eccentric part of an elliptical orbit, that radial force vector component is broken into a component perpendicular to the tangent line at any part of the curve and a component parallel to the tangent line. Of course, the radial gravitational force vector is the resultant of both.
All that means is that during the more eccentric parts of an elliptical orbit, the near face of the Moon does not experience the full force of gravity.
Gordon, you have written coin motion correctly, the moving coin forced by your hansd to rotate will on its own axis “rotate since (the radial lines) point in different directions N,W,S,E then back to N each orbit of the central coin. Just like Madhavi’s plate in Fig. 2b labeled “rotation” rotates on its own axis points N,W,S,E then back to N each orbit of O. One plate rotation on its axis for each orbit.
The coin points through N,W,S,E and back to N because it is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
Any coin that points N,W,S,E back to North has rotated on its own internal axis once doesn’t matter if it’s orbiting something or not.
That is precisely where you go wrong.
The non-spinner position is an object that has rotated once on its own axis has not spun. That non-spinner position is wrong.
There are two separate and independent motions:
1) Revolving
2) Axial Rotation
The moon is only doing 1).
By definition.
The non-spinner position is the moon faces N,W,S,E back to N having rotated once on its own axis each orbit but does not spin by the non-spinner definition, moon only orbits. That non-spinner position is clearly wrong.
Your argument is basically that anything that changes direction as it moves is rotating on its own axis. In order to think like that you have to ignore the definition of revolution.
Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. The ball points N,W,S,E back to N during each revolution (orbit) of the central point.
Planets can have different spin rates, all known planets spin on their own axis while they revolve about their star.
If you are arguing that revolution automatically includes axial rotation as part of the motion, you would be wrong.
I am not arguing that revolution automatically includes axial rotation as part of the motion, that would be wrong. See “curviliner translation” Fig. 2a. Revolution without axial rotation, orbiting object always points N, no rotation on its own axis.
Revolution is defined as a rotation about an external axis, like the moon on the left, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Or like Madhavi Fig. 2(b)
Very good DREMT, that’s progress, those objects are revolving (orbiting) about an external axis. Now work on rotation about an internal axis especially in curvilinear translation.
Ball4 says:
Very good DREMT, thats progress, those objects are revolving (orbiting) about an external axis. Now work on rotation about an internal axis especially in curvilinear translation.
=============================
You remain hopelessly confused Ball4. curvilinear translation is a partial rotation about something moving in a straight line. A sine wave would be an example.
What you have here is rotation is defined as rotation around a single point.
If the single point is in the middle of an object some particles on opposite sides are moving in opposite directions. Thats not the case with orbital rotation.
You can define orbital rotation as the ball on the string such that a line drawn from the COG of the orbited object through the center of the moon. That creates two radius lines in line with the center of orbital rotation. All the particles on those radius lines remain unmoved during the rotation around the COG of the orbited object. As the moon and that line orbits it creates a rotation around the COG axis with the particles in the moon on that line not moving from that line.
Spin on its own axis has all particles moving in relationship to all radius lines in the object except the particles on the central axis.
Astronomy tries to defeat that reality by inventing the term synchronous rotation. . . .but still the particles aren’t behaving in that manner. An anomaly that arises out of a science of the very large that totally ignores the science of the normal and small.
curvilinear translation is a partial rotation
Translation is no rotation bill.
“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.”
ball4…”The non-spinner position is the moon faces N,W,S,E back to N having rotated once on its own axis each orbit but does not spin by the non-spinner definition, moon only orbits. That non-spinner position is clearly wrong”.
You are suffering from an illusion, the same kind of illusion that has most humans believing the Sun rises in the east each morning and sets in the west. You are suffering from mental conditioning that the different directions pointed to by compass bearings in a lunar orbit is rotation about an axis. It only appears that way, look closer
It is TRANSLATION, not rotation about a local axis. At no time during the orbit does the N or S poles rotate around the centre. The N and S poles and the axis are moving in concentric orbits. Under those conditions it is not possible for N and S to rotate around the axis.
“It is TRANSLATION, not rotation about a local axis. At no time during the orbit does the N or S poles rotate around the centre.”
That is orbiting curvilinear translation Fig. 2a Gordon, coin only points N, translates w/no rotation, not your orbiting, rotating coin example.
Your coin example is orbiting AND you turn the coin one complete rotation about the orbiting coin’s own axis Fig. 2b pointing N,W,S,E back to N.
Do not go near airplane propellers that only appear to be rotating, Gordon could lose an arm.
Revolution without axial rotation is as per Madhavi Fig. 2(b), as confirmed by the definition of revolution I just posted. Motion like a ball on a string.
If you want us to believe instead that revolution without axial rotation is as per the “moon on the right” from the tidal locking GIF, then support that with a link to your own definition of revolution.
Def. of revolution has already been posted DREMT slide 18: 1 revolution = 2 pi radians
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474748
See slide 6 for a picture of curvilinear translation while the vehicle goes ~one half revolution, ~1 pi radians, up is always up, without axial rotation on the vehicle’s own axis, just translation as it revolves +/- 1 pi.
And here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473992
Compare slide 6 to Fig. 2a “curvilinear translation” during rectangle revolution of 2pi radians. Same motion. Rectangle always faces up showing all sides to center during orbit. The builders of the amusement ride practical application of Madhavi illustration Fig. 2a. This cannot be the moon’s motion as moon shows only one face to earth (point O).
Slide 18 shows rotation around a fixed axis. As we already know:
“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.”
You are instead defining revolution without axial rotation as being like the “moon on the right” from the tidal locking GIF, in which all sides of the moon are shown to “Point O”. You need to find a source to support that.
Aleady posted: “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That is not a definition of revolution, Ball4.
DREMT needed to find a source to support “that” i.e. was “from the tidal locking GIF”. I did. For a proper def. of revolution DREMT already has slide 18, a couple times.
Slide 18 supports the Non-Spinners. Try again.
As I’ve already explained, DREMT 7:49am provides another example where the non-spinners observe the object spinning on slide 18 and define that object as non-spinning. Readers have to reverse what the non-spinners define to arrive at correct, safe rigid body dynamics. Thus enable practical, safe readers not lose arms to airplane propellers that appear to non-spinners as non-spinning.
Correct rigid body dynamics readers do not drop out of amusement rides on their heads either (slide 6) employing correct curvilinear translation only, no rotation on vehicle’s axis like Fig. 2a which is not the moon’s motion as the moon rotates on its own axis Fig. 2b.
Slide 18 shows an object that is rotating around a fixed axis.
How do you get yourself so confused!?
Yes, DREMT, just draw the figure on slide 18 rotating on its own axis more in the form of the moon as it spins once on its axis per rev. Then revolve moon figure the 2 pi radians about an external axis thru earth spinning that once as shown & detail explained later in the link. That slide show is a start to less confusion for you and the other non-spinners. Y’all should have paid more attention when it was first posted.
The Non-spinners have always known what rotation around a fixed axis is. Hence why we know the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT, for your claim moon does not rotate on its own axis, that then is just curvilinear translation in a 2 pi rev. about earth, see slide 6. That vehicle does not rotate on its own axis so presents different faces to the orbital axis thus isn’t motion like the moon.
For motion like the moon, see slide 18 shows an object that is rotating around a fixed axis enabling the moon to rotate once per 2 pi rev. to present one face to earth.
No, Ball4. Revolution without axial rotation is motion like the moon, where the same side of the object faces the center of the orbit throughout.
By definition, as discussed.
Revolution without axial rotation is slide 6 DREMT, the vehicle pictured (worth 1000 words) is not motion like the moon DREMT, no matter your own words, as discussed.
Your non-spinner case is lost and closed, long ago.
Incorrect.
Moon rotating on its axis is easily disproved, by observation. Earth only sees one side of Moon. Therefore, Moon is not rotating about its axis.
But, false beliefs are hard to squelch. So another false belief had to be created — “tidal locking”.
But, “tidal locking” violates the laws of physics. So what do idiots do?
They just keep slinging nonsense on the wall, hoping something will stick.
And just look at some of the nonsense they have slung:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Where are physics courses taught?
#2
Definitions:
Independent rotation. Rotation occurring due to an unidentified cause or an identified cause that no longer is providing any forcing.
Dependent rotation. Rotation occurring due to an identified forcing that continues to exist.
Corollaries: Since forcings can be from any direction there is no scientific evidence that a rotation due to an identified forcing is in the same direction or a result of any past rotations from unidentified forcings. Thus one cannot conclude that a dependent rotation arose from a independent rotation as the dependent rotation has forces adequate to explain the rotation without external involvement.
Certainly there are forces to prevent dependent rotation when independent rotation is present; despite forces being present to create the dependent rotation in the absence of independent rotation. But its fundamentally wrong to conflate the two separate types of rotation and their cause.
Seems an obvious problem of limited understanding attacked forcefully by Dr. Madhavi.
B Hunter, Where would the term “angular momentum” fit into your set of definitions? Doesn’t the Moon exhibit angular momentum as evidenced by it’s rotation about a fixed axis?
The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, not on its own axis, and so it has orbital angular momentum but no spin angular momentum.
Correct. Perhaps Swanson should look up how to calculate it.
Only correct by non-spinners botching rotation N,W,E,S back to N not being rotation. Par for the course.
A ball on a string points through N,W,E,S, and back to N because the ball is rotating about an external axis (revolving) and not rotating on its own axis.
Ball4 says:
Only correct by non-spinners botching rotation N,W,E,S back to N not being rotation. Par for the course.
============================
Ball4 its a rotation about the COG of the orbit. You just remain totally ignorant of the non-spinner position by continuously claiming they say there is no rotation.
I realize you have no other argument than this bogus strawman argument and I just wonder when its going to dawn on you how insistent you are being about remaining ignorant.
bill just remains totally ignorant the non-spinner position is wrong by continuously omitting the N,W,S,E back to N rotation on internal axis the non-spinners define as no rotation about internal axis.
“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.”
ball4…”the non-spinner position is wrong by continuously omitting the N,W,S,E back to N rotation on internal axis”
If you attached a rope to an axis and grasped it with your left hand so the rope was taut, while your right hand was extended in a direction opposite the rope, and you walked around the axis in a circle, your extended arms would point in every direction on a compass. However, you could not claim to be rotating about your COG.
If you were rotating, you’d have to let go of the rope, or you’d end up wrapping yourself into the rope. You can’t see that, however, since you are conditioned to see rotation. Not to worry, there are a lot of climate alarmists who have the same issue with illusions.
Heck, there is one alarmist posting here who does not think heat exists. He claims heat is a measure of energy transfer but he is so deluded he does not get it that the energy being transferred is heat. According to him, heat is a transfer of heat.
In real life however, you could claim to be rotating about your COG since your arm points N,W,S,E back to N each orbit. If you didn’t so rotate on your own axis once per orbit, the rope would wrap around your body.
If you were rotating more or less than once per orbit, you would have to let go of the rope, or you would end up wrapping yourself into the rope.
How could someone claim heat doesn’t exist then according to him heat can transfer when it doesn’t exist?
Heat is the total KE of the molecules in a body; temperature is the local avg. KE of the molecules. Heat doesn’t exist to transfer as the molecules of a solid stay within the body, only their KE transfers, the total KE of the molecules reduces.
The transmographer confirmed that when “rotating around a point” (which is the same motion as “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”), the object already points through N,W,E,S and back to N, without needing to use the axial rotation option.
“(which is the same motion as “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”)”
DREMT adds DREMT’s own incorrect strawman, well stabbed. What the transmographer work properly confirms is curvilinear translation when the rectangle always faces up during one 2 pi revolution (orbit).
With added axial rotation of once per orbit for the object, the transmographer confirms object faces N,W,S,E and back to N per 2 pi revolution.
Since DREMT has not shown his transmographer work (no SI), DREMT’s work cannot be replicated.
#2
The transmographer confirmed that when “rotating around a point” (which is the same motion as “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”), the object already points through N,W,E,S and back to N, without needing to use the axial rotation option.
ball4…”In real life however, you could claim to be rotating about your COG since your arm points N,W,S,E back to N each orbit. If you didn’t so rotate on your own axis once per orbit, the rope would wrap around your body”.
Rotation about a COG is what an ice-skater does when he/she spins in one spot on the ice. If he/she was hanging onto a taut rope attached to an axis, he/she would either not rotate about a COG or he/she would wrap herself/himself up in the rope. In other words an ice skater, on ice, holding onto the rope and orbiting an axis could not rotate on his/her blades yet he/she with arms extended would have his/her extended arms point in every compass direction through a 360 degree orbit.
Re heat. Kinetic energy is not a definition of energy per se, KE describes energy in motion. Stored energy is potential energy a description of the state of energy, not the energy itself. KE and PE refer to any energy.
Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms, meaning it is a property of atoms in motion. In a solid lattice that could refer to the vibration of the atoms in the lattice. As you reduce the temperature of a mass toward 0K, the atoms vibrate less and get colder. It’s obvious that heat is the energy that causes the atoms to vibrate and the motion of the vibrating atoms is called kinetic energy and heat.
Temperature is a human definition and method of measuring the relative level of heat. Heat is a phenomenon, temperature is a human invention. Same for time, measure, density and pressure….all human inventions.
Some improvements in your thermodynamics & rigid body dynamics understanding Gordon:
If he/she was hanging onto a taut rope attached to an axis, he/she would either rotate once per rev. about a COG or he/she would wrap herself/himself up in the rope.
Kinetic energy is a form of energy. KE and PE both refer to forms of energy.
The motion of the vibrating atoms possesses a form of energy called kinetic energy, the total KE of which is defined as the heat in the object which STAYS with the solid object; the heat does not transfer from/to the solid object, total KE (heat) in the solid object merely changes in quantity.
Temperature is a human definition and method of measuring the relative level of avg. local KE of the constituent atoms; temperature is not heat.
“If he/she was hanging onto a taut rope attached to an axis, he/she would either rotate once per rev. about a COG or he/she would wrap herself/himself up in the rope.”
No, if he/she rotates on his/her own axis once per rev. then he/she would wrap him/herself up in the rope. The only way not to wrap him/herself up in the rope is to revolve without axial rotation.
Incorrect. Try it.
I did, and I am right.
Of course, applying the usual reversal of non-spinners calling spin non-spinning. During the experiment you rotated once on your axis per rev. if no wrapping and simply defined that as zero spin.
No. Rotating around the central point without rotating on your own axis is one separate and independent motion. Add axial rotation to that motion and you end up wrapping yourself up in the rope.
Add axial rotation more or less than once to that motion and you end up wrapping yourself up in the rope.
I am aware you think that, thank you.
swannie…”Doesnt the Moon exhibit angular momentum as evidenced by its rotation about a fixed axis?”
The Moon has no angular momentum of any kind, it has only linear momentum in a tangential direction based on the orbital path. It is forced into an elliptical path by Earth’s gravity. If gravity was stopped the Moon would fly off in a tangential direction due to its linear momentum. If it had angular momentum, it would continue to orbit.
I can’t imagine how that would work without a rigid connector between the Earth and the Moon.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I can’t imagine how that would work”
Imagine this:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
As bill hunter explained at the time:
“its quite simply a conversion from rotating around the hand spinning the ball on the end string to spinning on its axis as it travels in a straight line at its original orbit speed. the axis spinning is generated from the different speeds of the sides of the ball following orbits of different radii.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”its quite simply a conversion from rotating around the hand spinning the ball on the end string to spinning on its axis as it travels in a straight line at its original orbit speed. the axis spinning is generated from the different speeds of the sides of the ball following orbits of different radii.”
And which are diagrammed in the concentric circles drawn on Fig. 2(b) of rotation on an external axis.
The rotation on an internal axis is drawn in Fig. 1 as the diagram on the far right with the condition notated: ”If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration”
An axis in the middle of the rectangle could be mistakenly identified but its particles would not be meeting the conditions for a central axis in Fig 1.
Occam says: Stop orbiting and rotation remains.
Occam also says break the arm of gravity and its no longer a rigid system.
Gravity is not rigid, all our planets rotate.
bill gets the Madhavi text spot on, Svante fails to understand. Par for the course.
Svante provides a video that proves him wrong! That’s why he’s an idiot.
The tethered ball is not rotating about its axis, as it is held by the string. One side always faces the other end of the string. Idiots believe it is rotating about its axis because that is how it appears as viewed from idiot (inertial) space.
Best be very careful around airplane propellers that only appear to be rotating in inertial space ClintR (also bill), you could accidently lose an arm as did another unfortunate screenname around here some time ago.
#3
The transmographer confirmed that when “rotating around a point” (which is the same motion as “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”), the object already points through N,W,E,S and back to N, without needing to use the axial rotation option.
svante…”Imagine this:”
We discussed that a while back. I presume you are referring to the ball spinning after release in a tangential direction. Whether it spins or not is dependent on the tension relationship of the string and the ball before release.
It would be nearly impossible to release the ball from the string without adding a slight torque to the ball. The amount of torque would depend on the release point and where the string was attached to the ball.
In order to release the ball tangentially toward the camera, the guy swinging it has to judge the release point. If he is a fraction of a second too slow or too late in the release, he will add a torque to the ball and it will spin.
In any case, the spin of the ball after release has nothing to do with the ball rotating about its axis while attached to the string. It’s not possible for it to rotate as it does after release while attached to the string.
Ball4 says:
June 22, 2020 at 8:07 AM
Best be very careful around airplane propellers that only appear to be rotating in inertial space ClintR (also bill), you could accidently lose an arm as did another unfortunate screenname around here some time ago.
========================================
You are the one that should watch out and you will think its the aiplane thats spinning and not the propeller.
Copernicus already settled that bill, the propeller spins not the airplane.
#4
The transmographer confirmed that when “rotating around a point” (which is the same motion as “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”), the object already points through N,W,E,S and back to N, without needing to use the axial rotation option
It is amazing to see half a dozen of persons writing here their trivial, stubborn, endlessly repeated stuff as if it was the worldwide most important, most scientific contribution anybody has ever written since the Antiquity.
I don’t care about them, and continue my references to real science, this time out of the English translation of a Russian document:
https://tinyurl.com/yblg6bvw
Rizvanov / Rakhimov
History of development of selenodesy and dynamics of the Moon in Kazan
In section 3 of the document, we read:
3. Theory of rotation of the Moon
The most significant theoretical investigation of rotation of the Moon is undoubtedly the work of Sh. T. Habibullin “The Nonlinear theory LPhL [my emphasis: Lunar Physical librations] of the Moon” [13].
The author solved the problem of nonlinear fluctuations of rotation of the Moon by methods of N. Њ. Љrylov, N. N. Bogoljubov and N. G. Malkin.
The nonlinear theory in case of a resonance (f=0.622) gives the steady solution in contrast to the linear theory.
In the intervals which are far from the resonance, the nonlinear theory does not reveal essential refinements in comparison with the linear theory, but more authentically describes so called “free libration”.
…
Sh. T. Habibullin [15] gave the analysis of systems of the selenographic coordinates and developed the theory of precession and nutation of the axis of rotation of the Moon.
*
It makes here few sense to reply absolutely stoopid nonsense like
– ” the authors confound rotation about an axis and rotation about an orbited planet”
or
– “the authors aren’t engineers and hence lack to necessary understand of Physics”.
The so-called, self-named ‘engineers’ should give a proof of their real experience in the engineering field instead.
Until now, all of them utterly failed in doing that.
I suspect that none of them has ever worked in that field, and that all of them therefore will comfortably keep behind nicknames or pseudoreal names,like e.g. ‘Gordon Robertson’.
*
PostScriptum
Do not confound the historically known ‘optical librations’ with the ‘physical librations’.
While the former are illusions created by the conjunction of several concurring phenomena:
– the ellipticity of all orbits,
– the inclination of a body’s rotation axis wrt its orbit plane,
– the inclination of orbiting planes wrt the planes of the orbited bodies
the latter are real and are subdivided into two classes:
– ‘forced’, i.e. generated by constant, commensurable origins
– ‘free’, i.e. of unknown origin.
Only the former could be computed by differential motion equations long time before it was possible to observe them.
I don’t know exactly why it is so important to get knowledge about physical librations. I suppose that this is due to geologists who are interested in knowing more about the satellites’ ‘inner life’, in our case: that of the Moon.
*
Pseudoregards from a real, retired engineer to all anonymous ‘pseudoengineers’ posting their stoopid nonsense on this respectable blog!
J.-P. Dehottay
binny…”The most significant theoretical investigation of rotation of the Moon is undoubtedly the work of Sh. T. Habibullin ”
For someone who professes to be an engineer you have a poor comprehension of what you read. From a link to your authors:
“In the article of Sh.T.Habibullin [34] was shown that free libration of the Moon was not more than 0.3″.
Once again, they are talking about libration and the extent of the libration they found was 0.3”. Wow…quite a spin. Where’s the synchronous rotation of 360 degrees per orbit?
They are talking about a tiny libration not a full rotation about an axis.
quote above from:
History of development of selenodesy and dynamics of the Moon in Kazan by Rizvanov N.G. and Rakhimov L.I
see page 6
Robertson
You are really the most ignorant and dumbest person I ever encountered.
How is it possible to be so stupid?
Habibullin was talking about tiniest free librations detected within the spin, you megaidiot!
*
Yes, Robertson: today I indeed insult you.
Not only because you insulted me so incredibly often.
But because you are a dumb ass.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Habibullin was talking about tiniest free librations detected within the spin, you megaidiot”!
A free libration within a spin??? Proves you have no idea what libration means. At no time in the paper do they mention spin and what they mean by libration is a 0.3″ APPARENT motion.
The Moon’s circumference is 10,921 km. Divide that by 360 to get 10,291 km/360 degrees = 30.34 km/degree. Divide that by 3600 to get m/sec = 30,340 m/3600 seconds = 8.43metres/sec. Now multiply that by 0.3 seconds = 2.53 metres.
That’s it, Binny, there’s your libration, 2.53 metres. There is a discrepancy with Wikipedia who claim libration is about 7 degrees, 54 minutes. I think the Russian article is about another form of libration seen when a certain telescope is pointed at a rim of a crater on the near face.
Taking wiki’s value, which is nearly 8 degrees, that means a distance of 30.34 km/degree x 8 degrees = 242.7 km. That is not a rotation it is an APPARENT rotation due to the eccentricity of the orbit. At no time does the Moon physically rotate, it means we can see around the edge due to the fact the near face points slightly away from the Earth in an eccentric part of the orbit.
There are no torques on the Moon to cause a rotation OF ANY KIND. There is no angular velocity or momentum or there would be no libration.
“a certain telescope is pointed at a rim of a crater on the near face.”
Crater must have been daylit. New moon means same scene in darkness. If as Gordon writes, no moon rotation on its own axis, how did the scene change from daylight to darkness? Oh wait, I forgot, Gordon is living a pre-Copernicus life, the sun orbited the moon changing the scene lighting from day to night.
Gordon, even the ancients in 200BC built models showing the moon as spinning on its own axis to explain the phases. You (and others) just need to catch up to their insight.
First Svante provides a video that proved him wrong. Then Bindidon and Ball4 reuse their old distractions:
“Moon day/night mystery”
“Libration”
The idiots need some new material. Nothing they have thown has stuck.
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of revolving (orbiting) is exactly what Moon is doing. The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis.
ClintR always leaves out a certain fact from NASA Flight Director that the moon is NOT in curvilinear translation: The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
The sun going around the moon is from the moon going around the earth. Each and every time Ball4 the moon is between the sun and the earth at new moon, and the earth is between the sun and the moon at full moon.
So what do you think is happening? Is the earth orbiting the moon?
Can you wrap your head around this Ball4 or do you need to borrow a few more braincells to get it around?
If the moon rotates on its own axis
and if the moon orbits around the earth,
the moon will expose all its sides to the earth.
So we have two premises and a conclusion that follows directly from the two premises. A classic syllogism.
Only problem is the conclusion is wrong. So one of the premises has to be wrong.
Can you figure out which of the two premises is wrong?
If the moon rotates on its own axis, and if the moon orbits around the earth, then moon will expose all its sides to the earth unless moon rotates exactly once on its own axis per rev.
ball4…”If as Gordon writes, no moon rotation on its own axis, how did the scene change from daylight to darkness?”
Bill answered it well enough but I might ask, what do you think illuminates the Moon? Even with the same side always pointed toward Earth, sunlight illuminates different sides of the Moon, and the daylight/darkness depends on the Moon’s position in its orbit.
Nothing to do with lunar rotation.
Having read NASA’s page on myths about the Moon I think it’s time they replaced the author of the page. I wonder if they realize how much of a fool the author is making NASA out to be. The author is likely from NASA GISS and is likely a climate alarmist to boot.
ball4…”Crater must have been daylit. New moon means same scene in darkness”.
Obviously. With a new Moon, the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun and the far side is fully illuminated. Nothing can be seen of the near side.
So the researchers in Binny’s article must have been working at night while the near face was illuminated by the Sun from behind the Earth. For that reason, they would not be able to check out the full libration of the Moon, only a slight, local perturbation.
I don’t know if they can see the part of the elliptical orbit from Russia where full libration would occur. Neither could Cassini et al who Binny so liberally quotes. I am sure Cassini et al were misguided about the full lunar orbit, leading them to the misconception that the Moon rotated once per orbit. They should have been able to reason it, however, by making a simple drawing with the near face always pointed in.
Tesla did. Then again, Tesla was the kind of scientist who liked to think about such problems.
… while dodging hotel bills and feeding pigeons at 63 years of age.
…b-b-b-but Tesla was old, an he, an he an he didn’t pay his hotel bills! An he…an he…fed the pidgins! He couldn’t o’ bin no clever if he fed the pidgins! I have a argumint!
Great! Svante comes up with another distraction to cover up for the fact they can’t understand the simple motions. I’ll add it to the list:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating about an axis”
Where are physics courses taught?
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Sane people would realize how incompetent and desperate their lame attempts are, but they’re not sane. They’re religious fanatics. aka “idiots”.
Here’s another idea you might like, let your car run on Aether energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla_electric_car_hoax
“sunlight illuminates different sides of the Moon” as the moon rotates on its own axis. Gordon, the sun doesn’t orbit the moon.
“sunlight illuminates different sides of the moon” as the moon rotates about the Earth-moon barycenter, not on its own axis.
Ball4, how many times are you going to make the same mistake over and over again?
Svante…sheesh. Get a grip.
Svante finds another link proving he is an idiot.
Svante is desperately trying to discredit Tesla with nonsense like this: “No physical evidence has ever been produced confirming that the car actually existed. Tesla did not have a nephew by the name of Peter Savo, and Tesla’s grand-nephew William Terbo considers the Tesla electric car story to be a fabrication.”
Svante believes in hoaxes. That’s why he’s an idiot.
As the moon rotates about the Earth-moon barycenter & on its own axis once per rev. presenting one face to earth. For no moon axial rotation see slide 6.
I see, Ball4 plans on making the same mistake indefinitely.
For no moon axial rotation observe slide 6, that correctly is moon curvilinear translation in orbit, no axial rotation.
Now when someone defines rotation as no rotation, simply reverse the comments to get the correct answer.
Ball4 plans on making the same mistake indefinitely.
svante…”Heres another idea you might like, let your car run on Aether energy”.
Your misunderstanding of Tesla is immense. The premise of much of his work was that electricity could be transmitted through space (the Aether) as you mistakenly call it, and he proved it could be done to an extent. Unfortunately he was pioneering such studies since not much was known about it.
Along the way he managed to pioneer studies in electric motors and transformers, being the first to demonstrate multi-phase systems like 2- and 3-phase transformers and motors. His undoing was his integrity. The guy refused to compromise his ethics to become very wealthy.
Tesla understood the Moon does not rotate based on his examination of the physical aspects. Many people, some working at NASA, lack the ability to get past their in-built biases and delusions to SEE the problems with the Moon rotating while the near face is tidally-locked to always face the Earth.
Tesla is not an astronomical source, Gordon. The moon rotates once on its own axis per orbit of earth in order to present the same face to earth, just like a ball on a string.
If the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis, that is curvilinear translation and moon would present all faces to earth.
I can convert/map degrees F to degrees C.
I can also convert/map picture non-spinner axial rotations to correct axial rotations using slide 6.
Correct axial rotations:……………….0,1,2,3,4…
Non-spinner incorrect axial rotations…..-1,0,1,2,3…
…the same mistake, indefinitely…
The Moon rotation debate has been doing the rounds since 1745:
https://tinyurl.com/y99d3khp
So it wasn’t a unique stroke of genius in his old age, more likely done as a jest. Perhaps he got bored feeding the pigeons, or perhaps he wanted a bit of attention?
Or far more likely, it was not done in jest, he was not even very old, and he was in fact completely serious.
Svante, and the other idiots, must find some way to pervert the simple reality:
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of revolving (orbiting) is exactly what Moon is doing. The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis.
ClintR indefinitely leaves out a certain fact from NASA Flight Director that the moon is NOT in curvilinear translation: The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Same NASA Flight Director: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
Ball4 points out the inconsistencies from NASA. Ball4 loves inconsistencies because the inconsistencies serve to pervert reality.
The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis. Just like the ball on a string.
The idiots MUST pervert the simple reality.
Rotation conversion matrix 4:18pm invoked:
Ball on string & moon axial rotates per orbit:
1 per spinners, videos, NASA guy, and text books.
0 per non-spinners
…indefinitely…
ClintR, you may see things in a different light with this three wheeled orrery:
https://tinyurl.com/y99d3khp
Nope, it’s the same as always. Idiots cannot understand the motions involved.
In fact Svante, if you actually study the link you found, you would find he is considering inertial (idiot) space as the way to judge axial rotation. That’s why it is called “idiot space”. Axial rotation is judged from the center of the orbit. Idiot space can fool you, but if Moon always has the same side facing Earth, it is NOT rotating about its axis.
If the Moon isn’t rotating about its very own axis, then the Earth revolves around the Moon. And the rest of the universe.
Redonculous!
That is a truly redonculous false dichotomy, blob. Proves you have not made one iota of progress. Very funny, thank you.
Your comment proves you haven’t studied anything, and just make stuff up to try and prove your intellectual superiority.
Hint: It’s not working.
Looking at the Earth from the Moon, the stars and other objects move with respect to the Earth, therefore the Earth is revolving around the Moon, if the Moon isn’t spinning.
That’s at your level of observation and logic, you might want to up your game a bit.
You are very funny. Thank you for your frequent displays of your stupidity and of your ugly, childish personality.
You seem to have a better handle on insults than science, or facts, or logic.
I’m sorry for your argument-loss, but happy with the win.
What win?
The Moon is still spinning or the Earth is revolving around the Moon.
Pick the correct one!
#2
I’m sorry for your argument-loss, but happy with the win.
That does not compute.
Incorrect answer, go back two squares.
You have overdue library books, please proceed to the white zone for processing.
#3
I’m sorry for your argument-loss, but happy with the win.
“That is a truly redonculous false dichotomy, blob.”
“Thank you for your frequent displays of your stupidity and of your ugly, childish personality.”
Yep, that’s what we’re dealing with here folks.
You can’t win the argument on the science and you can’t win with insults.
And still the Moon spins on its axis.
bobd…”You have overdue library books, please proceed to the white zone for processing”.
Don’t know where you live, Bob, but around here in Canada, all the libraries are closed.
bobdroege says:
Jun 25, 2020 at 9:49 AM
If the Moon isnt rotating about its very own axis, then the Earth revolves around the Moon. And the rest of the universe.
Redonculous!
===========================================
First off bob the moon orbits the earth 12 times a year.
Start with that fact and then reconstruct what the moon is rotating on.
Stomping your feet and screaming your head off isn’t called an argument. . . .its called a tantrum.
Gordon,
Have you figured out that you are rotating your coin yet?
Bill,
It’s rotating on its own axis of course, what else could it be?
That axis being different and not parallel to the one the Moon revolves around.
And do get your numbers right, this is of course incorrect.
“First off bob the moon orbits the earth 12 times a year.”
Try guessing a different number as that is all you are capable of doing, guessing that is.
The moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, not on its own axis. The motion is known as “orbiting”, or revolution. As we saw earlier, revolution without axial rotation is defined as movement like a ball on a string, where the same face is shown to the center of the orbit throughout. “Revolution” is just another word for rotation about an external axis.
The transmographer confirmed that when “rotating around a point” (which is the same motion as “rotating about an external axis” or “revolving”), the object already points through N,W,E,S and back to N, without needing to use the axial rotation (“around center”) option.
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
So that’s that.
So DREMPTY,
You continue to ignore the observation that the Moon revolves around the Earth Moon barycenter while rotating around a different axis through the Moon.
You continue to ignore that there are two, yes two axes involved in the motion of the Moon, one it revolves around and one it rotates around.
And you can’t explain the libration observed from the Earth without recognizing that there are two axes responsible for the observed motion of the Moon.
Your transmographer only works in two dimensions, you need to borrow a real transmogrifier from Calvin or Hobbes to get the right answer.
Cause you know the Moon actually moves in three dimensions.
“You continue to ignore that there are two, yes two axes involved in the motion of the Moon, one it revolves around and one it rotates around.”
I know for certain that is incorrect. If the moon were rotating about an external axis (revolving) whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which is proven by the transmographer.
Bob is not going to use the transmographer. In Bob’s mind physics is subservient to his imagination.
You know nothing DREMPTY,
The transmographer is no good, as it is only in two dimensions, the Moon moves in three dimensions so you need to get a better program.
“I know for certain that is incorrect. If the moon were rotating about an external axis (revolving) whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which is proven by the transmographer.”
No, not if the rotation and revolving were synchronous, which they are.
As I said above, your transmographer is one dimension short of a picnic.
Have you figured out what an inertial reference frame is yet?
No Bill Hunter, you might be better off, going back and listening to some Pink Floyd.
“Bob is not going to use the transmographer. In Bobs mind physics is subservient to his imagination.”
I have actually studied physics, and got a passing grade, and you?
blob, the transmographer (along with all the references I have provided throughout) support the fact that if the moon were rotating about an external axis (revolving) whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. “Synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.
svante…”ClintR, you may see things in a different light with this three wheeled orrery:”
I don’t see what a geared system has to do with the Moon, with only linear momentum, moving in an orbit created by a relationship between the linear momentum and gravitational acceleration.
I think this is a problem of perception and illusion. Many people apparently cannot look at the action of the Moon and understand that it cannot possibly rotate about its axis while keeping the same face toward the Earth. It appears that even highly regarded scientists and mathematicians cannot see through the illusion of rotation about an axis.
But “his autobiography is included in the 1857 biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen”.
…and still, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
So the universe revolves around the Moon, then.
No. Google “false dichotomy”, blob.
No its not a false dichotomy, why don’t you google synchronous rotation.
You might learn something.
There is relative rotation between the Moon and the rest of the Universe, why don’t you figure out which one is rotating?
bob is just another amateur with nothing to offer. If you show him wrong enough, he resorts to juvenile profanities and insults.
bobd…”why dont you google synchronous rotation”.
Ever considered that the wiki is wrong? The content of wiki is not fact, it is a general opinion offered by the poster of the wiki article.
bobd…”There is relative rotation between the Moon and the rest of the Universe, why dont you figure out which one is rotating?”
The Moon is not rotating relative to the stars or anything else. It is performing curvilinear translation and as a result it shows different faces to the stars as it orbits via CT.
Rotation required an axis or COG. Neither is present wrt Moon.
Dremt has generously conceded to you spinners that the Moon rotates about the Earth/Moon barycentre. I am not willing to go that far even though the difference between rotation and revolving is often regarded as an argument in semantics.
For example, we say colloquially that a person is paranoid with reference to plain worry/anxiety. Paranoia is actually a serious mental disorder in which the person suffering has seriously unreasonable fears. We even very incorrectly apply it to terms like homophobia and Islamophobia. Most people don’t have unreasonable fears of homosexuals or Muslims.
Same with rotation. You can use it in the vernacular all you want, the real meaning is applied only to an object rotating around an axis or a centre of gravity. The Moon, in its orbit, is rotating around nothing, it is only revolving.
By claiming rotation, you are not paying attention to the local parameters. The Moon is always trying to move in a straight line. It is acted upon by gravity that accelerates it very slightly but enough to bend it away from a straight line. It so happens that the Moon’s linear momentum and the acceleration due to gravity are in such a ratio that the resultant path bends into a complete circle or ellipse.
Rotation is not required to explain the axes of the Moon completing a 360 degrees revolution. Curvilinear translation explain it well, without rotation.
If the Moon’s momentum was a bit higher, at the same orbital altitude, the Moon would fly off on a parabolic or hyperbolic path. If it was a bit lower, the Moon would spiral into the Earth. Furthermore, CR meets the requirements of the Moon’s linear momentum and the acceleration acting on the mass.
Gordon,
Synchronous rotation predates wikipedia.
I learned about it before Armstrong landed on the Moon.
“It is performing curvilinear translation”
No it’s not, curvilinear translation requires that the Moon would keep pointing in the same direction.
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
page 6,
But you obviously don’t understand the requirements for curvilinear translation, cause the Moon isn’t doing that.
JD huffnstuff, ClintR, GE=R=AN or whatever sock-puppet you are today
I correct your statement
bob is just another amateur with nothing to offer. If you lie about what he has said, he talks like he is still in the Navy.
Wrong bob, here’s just one example of your inability to face reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-483852
ClintR
I think there is a movie you need to watch. Snakes on a Plane is the title if I can recall.
You also need to learn to take a joke, don’t be so sensitive, don’t get your panties all in a bunch.
You also need to refute my proof that the Moon indeed rotates, you haven’t done that yet.
And here is an example of an ad-hom
“No bob. What you “proved” is that you don’t understand the motions being discussed, and you’re unable to learn.”
You see, instead of attacking my argument, you attack me, that’s what an ad-hom is.
Up your game, you are losing.
ClintR is right. Anyone who actually understands the Non-Spinner position can see that you do not understand the motions, and are unable to learn. It is simply an observation.
No, it’s just an ad-hom, if your argument is that I don’t understand your position, and the motions of the Moon, and can’t learn and what not.
I’ll score that as an own goal.
Spinners 1
Non-spinners -1
You are going in the wrong direction.
No…it is definitely just an observation.
ball4…”Gordon, Have you figured out that you are rotating your coin yet?”
I have already proved to you that it is not rotating ABOUT ITS AXIS. So, what is it rotating about? Nothing. Nada.
Same as a horse running an oval or circular track. Or wooden horses on a MGR. All parts of the horse(s) are moving in elliptical/circular concentric orbits.
Why are you having so much trouble seeing this? I am not rotating the coin around its centre, I am SLIDING around the stationary coin but in order to keep the mark pointing at the centre of the stationary coin I have to ‘adjust’ it. That is the same action that gravity has on the linear momentum of the Moon.
The turning motion exerted on the Moon’s linear momentum is natural. The result is curvilinear translation that is no different than translation in a straight line. All the conditions are met: each point on the mass is moving parallel to the others and the angular/linear velocity of each part in the rigid body is the same.
This is not the only logic with which you struggle. You don’t think heat exists although it is thermal energy. You have defined heat as a transfer of energy but you don’t get it that the energy being transferred is thermal energy, aka heat.
You need to work on the awareness required for proper scientific observation.
Gordon, you quote bob. Here, slide 6 explains curvilinear translation for you in a real object. Notice how vehicle doesn’t show same face to the orbital axis. Curvilinear translation is not the moon’s motion which includes rotation on its own axis like your coin; both coin & moon rotating once per rev. keeping same face to orbital axis while revolving (slide 18).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474748
And I have NOT defined heat as a transfer of energy, that is wrong. Heat does not exist in an object.
Gordon et. al. need to work on the awareness required for proper scientific observation.
Ball4 argues that revolution without axial rotation = curvilinear translation (as per slide 6).
Ball4 is wrong. Revolution without axial rotation = rotation about an external axis. Motion like a ball on a string:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“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.”
Thoughtco writer left off stuff that indefinitely confuses DREMT but doesn’t confuse most folks that watch videos of balls rotating on axes once per rev. on a string revolving about a central axis, or thought experiments of coins doing the same thing as the moon:
Examples of revolution would be a rotating ball on the end of a string as seen in the video, or a planet going around a star while rotating keeping same face toward center axis as ball in the videos. However, in the case of rotating planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.
Rotation conversion matrix 4:18pm invoked:
Ball on string & moon axial rotates per orbit:
1 per spinners, videos, NASA guy, and text books.
0 per non-spinners
Sorry Ball4, you do not get to just change the definitions to suit your beliefs.
Why not DREMPTY,
You seem quite adept at changing definitions to promote your agenda.
And by the way, we are still waiting for a definition of rotation from you.
I see the checks in the mail?
I get to add to anything to correctly match the videos.
Rotation conversion matrix 4:18pm invoked:
Ball on string & moon axial rotates per orbit:
1 per spinners, videos, NASA guy, text books,thoughtco.
0 per non-spinners
Well, if you acknowledge that Ball4 is changing the definitions, I guess you concede the point. Thanks for that.
DREMPTY,
Where did I acknowledge that Ball4 was changing any definitions? If you read clearly, and clearly you can’t, I was accusing you of changing definitions to serve your purposes.
So if you can do it, then Ball4 can do it, there was no acknowledgement that he did change any definitions.
You are the one whose position is the Moon is not rotating, because we define not rotating as being what the Moon is doing.
So there is that.
“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.”
bob and ball4 refuse to face reality. The ball on a string is not rotating about its axis. The “chalk circle” is not rotating about its axis. Moon is not rotating about its axis.
But bob and ball4 MUST believe orbiting is also “rotating about its axis”, because that is the appearance from “idiot” space.
The ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev. per the videos. THAT is reality no matter any author view to the contrary whatever imprecise words are used.
Yes ClintR, the problem is definitely the inertial reference frame, specifically the one where r=0 is fixed on the moon’s center of mass. Here you lose the correct perspective on orbital motion completely. You need the inertial reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the Earth-moon barycenter. In other words, you have to “zoom out” your frame of reference so that you can “see” the full orbital motion of the moon. Then you understand that the moon is just revolving, with no axial rotation.
You can’t judge if an object is just rotating about an external axis (no axial rotation) or not if your frame of reference is too “zoomed in” on the orbiting object.
Ball4 says:
The ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev. per the videos. THAT is reality no matter any author view to the contrary whatever imprecise words are used.
=========================
Ball4 sees the ball rotating because he imagines the astronaut’s hand is revolving around the ball.
The ball is fixed spinning in space and its the space station that is revolving around the ball. What you smokin Bob?
Juicy Fruit,
Want some?
DREMPTY,
You are still too confused for school,
“Yes ClintR, the problem is definitely the inertial reference frame, specifically the one where r=0 is fixed on the moon’s center of mass. ”
The center of mass of the Moon is definitely not an inertial reference frame.
Also this one
“You need the inertial reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the Earth-moon barycenter.”
Again, the Earth-Moon barycenter is not an inertial reference frame.
Zoom in, zoom out, it doesn’t matter.
Pick an inertial reference frame, from there it is easy to determine if the Moon is spinning or not.
Apparently, the ability to choose an inertial reference frame is beyond your pay-grade, but they don’t pay kindergartners, do they?
bob, you fail again.
The correct reference frame for axial rotation for a ball on a string is the other end of the string. Translations for idiots: The ball is not rotating about its axis.
The correct reference frame for axial rotation of Moon is Earth. Translations for idiots: Moon is not rotating about its axis.
Maybe if you use some juvenile profanities you could appear smarter….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-483852
“The center of mass of the Moon is definitely not an inertial reference frame.”
I agree, that’s why I specified a reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon. bdgwx was talking about it earlier. Polar co-ordinates, r,a. a=0 is set to some fixed star.
If you don’t like it, take it up with him/her.
“Again, the Earth-Moon barycenter is not an inertial reference frame.”
Same thing.
Look here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-473531
ClintR,
The ball on a string is an inadequate model to answer the question on the Moon’s rotation.
For the ball on a string the rotation axis and the revolving axis are parallel, and yes as the astronaut showed us, the ball on a string is definitely rotating and revolving.
You still can’t correctly pick a reference frame, sorry.
You might as well believe a chalk circle drawn near the edge of a merry-go-round platform is rotating on its own axis, as the merry-go-round rotates.
Drempty,
“I agree, thats why I specified a reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon. bdgwx was talking about it earlier. Polar co-ordinates, r,a. a=0 is set to some fixed star.”
Exactly, in that coordinate system the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Because, the line from the center of mass of the Moon to some fixed star, intersects the surface of the Moon at some point p, and that point p is moving across the surface of the Moon, hence the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Thanks for confirming that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
It appearsto be rotating on its own axis within that reference frame, because you are too “zoomed in” to recognize that in fact it is just rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. “Zoom out”, so that r=0 is instead fixed on the Earth-moon barycenter, and you see the bigger picture.
Sorry DREMPTY.
“I agree, that’s why I specified a reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon. bdgwx was talking about it earlier. Polar co-ordinates, r,a. a=0 is set to some fixed star.”
You set the center on the center of mass of the Moon, so you can’t change it to the Earth-Moon barycenter.
So in fact it’s just like the definition of rotation in the cited text, I believe on page 6.
So good job, you have demonstrated that you understand that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Let me give you a gold star on your homework and a
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Of course I can change it to the Earth-moon barycenter. I can use whatever reference frame I like. Talk about missing the point. I know you are desperate, but I didn’t realize you were this desperate.
Look how bob has to deny reality: “The ball on a string is an inadequate model to answer the question on the Moon’s rotation.”
He lives in that Egyptian river.
DREMPTY,
Yes of course you can change the reference frame, but then you change everything, and are not answering the question of whether the Moon is rotating or not.
Best would be to use an inertial reference frame, which you refuse to do, you keep switching from one non-inertial reference frame to another.
Which won’t help you get the correct answer.
And you have never explained how the libration is explained based on a non rotating Moon, nor have you addressed the observed fact that the Moon revolves around one axis and rotates around another and that these two axes are not parallel.
But you were on the right track with the reference frame on the Moon’s center of gravity, a line from there to a distant star traces a circle on the Moon’s surface proving again that the Moon is indeed rotating on an axis perpendicular to the line to the distant star.
Try to refute that!
A line from Moon’s center of gravity to a distant star traces a circle on the Moon’s surface because the Moon is rotating around the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Sorry DREMPTY,
You chose the reference frame that has nothing to do with what the Earth is doing.
Just the line from the center of gravity of the Moon to a distant star, and the circle traced out at the surface of the Moon, which defines a plane, and the line perpendicular to that plane, which is the axis the Moon is rotating around.
So the Moon is spinning, because it is spinning, nothing to do with the Earth.
Anyway, from the perspective that you chose, the Earth is revolving around the Moon, since you continue to choose a non-inertial reference frame.
Sorry to talk over your head.
A line from Moon’s center of gravity to a distant star traces a circle on the Moon’s surface because the Moon is rotating around the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
You just need to “zoom out” to see it. As I explained from the beginning, in my 8:51am comment.
If you zoom out and keep the same reference frame, you see the Moon rotating on its axis.
“Zooming out” means changing reference frame from r=0 fixed on the cm of the moon to r=0 fixed on the Earth-moon barycenter. In both cases it is an inertial reference frame because a=0 is set to some fixed star for both.
The reality for both cases is that the moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis. In the former reference frame it may appear to be rotating on its own axis, but in the latter you can see that this is just an illusion.
You are not using inertial reference frames, both reference frames you are talking about are non-inertial, which leads you to getting the wrong answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
I am talking about inertial reference frames. a=0 is set to a fixed star.
Setting A=0 and pointing to a distant star can be done on both inertial and non-inertial reference frames.
You don’t seem to understand what an inertial reference frame is.
So you fail again to get the correct answer.
From an inertial reference frame the observations are that the Moon is orbiting the Earth-Moon barycenter around one axis, and is rotating around another axis, and that these two axes are not parallel.
That about does it.
Be sure to let bdgwx know you don’t think he/she knows what an inertial reference frame is, blob.
I would guess you misunderstood Bdgwx.
You are taking his word for what an inertial reference frame is, instead of referring to a suitable textbook or even wikipedia.
That’s a stupid move.
I don’t care what you think he said about it, anyway the question is whether you understand the topic or not.
There is only one reference frame where the Moon is not spinning and using that one, well it violates special relativity.
And it has everything but the Moon revolving around the Moon and you don’t believe that one do you?
blob, if anything, your comments suggest that you don’t know what an inertial reference frame is.
DREMPTY,
An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating.
Done.
If your reference frame is on the Earth-Moon barycenter, which is accelerating, then that is not an inertial reference frame.
Yes, you are done alright.
bobdroege says:
I would guess you misunderstood Bdgwx.
You are taking his word for what an inertial reference frame is, instead of referring to a suitable textbook or even wikipedia.
Thats a stupid move.
I dont care what you think he said about it, anyway the question is whether you understand the topic or not.
There is only one reference frame where the Moon is not spinning and using that one, well it violates special relativity.
And it has everything but the Moon revolving around the Moon and you dont believe that one do you?
DREMPTY,
An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating.
Done.
If your reference frame is on the Earth-Moon barycenter, which is accelerating, then that is not an inertial reference frame.
===============================
Bob I would say you are guessing wrong about several things.
First, the moon is spinning. . . .around the earth’s COM.
Second, Its my impression that DREMT’s frame of reference is the visible star system and still the moon rotates around the earth.
Focusing on the earth/moon system is solely for the purpose of identifying cause and effect. The moon’s rotation is controlled by the earth in the same respect as a rectangle that revolves around and external axis Fig. 2(b) of Madhavi’s text.
Together with the recognition that if a single side of the moon remains materially pointed (as per the slide presentation) at earth the only way the moon could be spinning on its own axis is if the earth were in a synchronized orbit around the moon.
So as many ways as you try to twist definitions and split the moon’s motions into separate categories you come up with basic absurdities.
Even the concept that the moon’s motion is some left over from an ancient spin on its own axis doesn’t have a probability of being true. As in your favorite reference frame of a cannonball with no spin, earth’s gravity would induce a spin.
Bill Hunter, if that’s even you, I think you are a sockpuppet for DEMPTY.
You are in not even wrong territory.
I can be bothered to address all the mistakes in your last post, because I have already addressed all of them.
You/Bill/Drempty need so much to study some Astronomy.
Mistake 1: First, the moon is orbiting. . . .around the earth’s COM, barycenter actually.
Mistake 2: DREMT’s frame of reference is not inertial “doesn’t work either way” per bdgwx.
Mistake 3: the earth is NOT in a synchronized orbit around the moon and yet single side of moon points materially at earth.
Mistake 4: no basic absurdities. The videos of the ball on a string brings bill back from absurdity to reality: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Mistake 5: earth’s gravity would NOT induce a moon spin more or less than once per rev., earth can act to continously increase moon orbital velocity which it is doing.
Want to try for some more mistakes bill? Pretty sure you can do it.
Sure, blob…everyone is a sock puppet.
Earth to Bob. . . .do the experiment!
I can’t do an experiment on the Moon, I can only observe the Moon.
And I observe that the Moon revolves around the earth on one axis and rotates around another axis that is within the Moon, and both of these axes are not parallel so you can’t fashion a reference frame to combine them.
So the Moon rotates on one axis and revolves on another, this is the only way to explain the observed libration.
If the Moon didn’t rotate on its axis we see less of its surface than we actually do. We actually see more than half from Earth.
bobdroege says:
I cant do an experiment on the Moon, I can only observe the Moon.
===================================
Nobody is asking you to experiment on the moon, simply experiment on a model of the moon earth system.
You won’t do it because you recognize the two motions you want to divide the moon’s motion into has a single cause.
It only makes sense to split the motions of heavenly bodies into different cause categories, say orbital and preorbital spin having different causes.
The idea that it is all one spin doesn’t fit the evidence. Its like some kind of pre-Newton way of describing the moon, though it was probably much later that the implications of Newton were identified as being responsible for some of the spin of planets.
Eventually all the planets will spin in one direction and all north poles will point in one direction and all planets will have no seasons. . . .provided of course something else dramatic happens first.
So I will accept your demurral of doing the experiment as outlined as a claim by you that the moon’s motions are not in compliance with the rules of rigid body dynamics. Perhaps you could pass that on to your sock puppet.
I realize I am talking to a philosopher who is not trained in science but here goes.
“Nobody is asking you to experiment on the moon, simply experiment on a model of the moon earth system.”
Yeah, but as I have said, all the models proposed fail. Because they lack the properties of the Earth-Moon system.
“You wont do it because you recognize the two motions you want to divide the moons motion into has a single cause.”
The two motions have nothing to do with what I want and all to do with the evidence that there are two axes involved with the motion of the Moon.
“It only makes sense to split the motions of heavenly bodies into different cause categories, say orbital and preorbital spin having different causes.”
Who cares what the cause is at this point, all I care is whether the Moon is spinning or not, all the evidence says it is.
“The idea that it is all one spin doesnt fit the evidence. Its like some kind of pre-Newton way of describing the moon, though it was probably much later that the implications of Newton were identified as being responsible for some of the spin of planets.”
Finally you get something, yes it is not all one spin, it’s two, one rotating and one revolving. Then Newtons first law comes to mind, I’ll paraphrase, an object spinning will continue to spin until a force acts on it.
“Eventually all the planets will spin in one direction and all north poles will point in one direction and all planets will have no seasons. . . .provided of course something else dramatic happens first.”
How is that going to happen in accordance with Newtons Laws??????
“So I will accept your demurral of doing the experiment as outlined as a claim by you that the moons motions are not in compliance with the rules of rigid body dynamics. Perhaps you could pass that on to your sock puppet.”
Not so fast, nothing I have said should be construed as a claim that the Moon does not comply with rigid body dynamics.
“The two motions have nothing to do with what I want and all to do with the evidence that there are two axes involved with the motion of the Moon.”
The Spinner position has to be that the motion of the moon around the Earth is a curvilinear translation (as per slide 6), coupled with a rotation of the moon on its own axis. That is the only way it works for you guys. Needless to say, a translation does not occur about an axis. So you do not have two axes to compare.
If you have the moon rotating about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating about its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which was proven by the transmographer.
As the videos prove in reality, if you have the moon orbiting about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating about its own axis more or less than once per rev., you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
The Spinner position has to be that the motion of the moon around the Earth is a curvilinear translation (as per slide 6), coupled with a rotation of the moon on its own axis. That is the only way it works for you guys. Needless to say, a translation does not occur about an axis. So you do not have two axes to compare.
If you have the moon rotating about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating about its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which was proven by the transmographer.
DREMPTY,
That’s only because you count rotations incorrectly, please correct and resubmit your homework.
The following are facts, based on observations.
The Moon rotates around one axis.
The Moon revolves around the Earth around another axis.
These two axes are not parallel.
You only see 59% of the Moons surface from Earth.
You ought to listen to the first line in this song, and take the advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOpJMQ3-VE
I was responding to Bill anyway, so let him respond, I don’t want to read your same post over and over.
Tough, blob. The same post over and over is what you are going to get, because it is the truth.
#2
The Spinner position has to be that the motion of the moon around the Earth is a curvilinear translation (as per slide 6), coupled with a rotation of the moon on its own axis. That is the only way it works for you guys. Needless to say, a translation does not occur about an axis. So you do not have two axes to compare.
If you have the moon rotating about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating about its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which was proven by the transmographer.
DREMPTY,
Nope, you are wrong, and I will keep telling you that.
The rotation and revolution happen at the same time, so you don’t see all sides of the Moon from Earth.
Reality is tough for you, how does it feel to be always wrong?
You keep counting to two when the answer is one!
Evidence is bob, DREMT can’t count past 0 rotations on moon’s own axis to properly obtain 1 complete spin per rev. All the non-spinners can’t count.
If you have the moon rotating about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating about its own axis more or less than once, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which was not proven by the transmographer but can be. DREMT never showed his transmographer work!
bobdroege says:
I realize I am talking to a philosopher who is not trained in science but here goes.
Nobody is asking you to experiment on the moon, simply experiment on a model of the moon earth system.
Yeah, but as I have said, all the models proposed fail. Because they lack the properties of the Earth-Moon system.
You wont do it because you recognize the two motions you want to divide the moons motion into has a single cause.
The two motions have nothing to do with what I want and all to do with the evidence that there are two axes involved with the motion of the Moon.
=================================
Well sometimes a dose of philosophy helps. Fact is an axis is an ”imaginary line”. Imaginary lines can be inserted into any rigid body at actually any location to describe a rotation about that imaginary line.
So in describing motion, say in accordance with Dr. Madhavi, there is actually a purpose for describing rotation in an explicit way for the purpose of organizing thought on the topic primarily of designing and building working mechanisms.
What has been totally absent in this debate from your side is a functional truth that only exists by describing a rotation around the moon’s center of mass axis. If you could actually do that then you would have provided a valid reason for an axis to be in that location. That is the usual purpose for imaginary lines as opposed to just arguing that the axis is here vs there.
It seems that libration is an inadequate reason. All rigid systems have a degree of ‘play’ and ‘vibration’ and ‘stretch’ and ‘bendability’. The movement of the moon is indeed complex and would be difficult to engineer either as a model with gravity or as a model with some other means of obtaining rigidity. But thats why you have imaginary lines so that one can use their ingenuity to figure out how to do it.
IMHO, putting the rotational axis in the moon’s center of gravity simply raises that complexity and potentially makes it far more difficult to build a realistic model. So if you could actually offer up a rational basis for putting the axis there that would be a far more powerful argument than the one you have been pursuing.
========================
=========================
bobdroege says:
”Who cares what the cause is at this point, all I care is whether the Moon is spinning or not, all the evidence says it is.
Finally you get something, yes it is not all one spin, its two, one rotating and one revolving. Then Newtons first law comes to mind, Ill paraphrase, an object spinning will continue to spin until a force acts on it.”
============================
I have always recognized two spins, divided up by cause and effect. X number of spins as a result of pre-orbital spin (or some collision after orbiting) but essentially an unidentified spin and the other spin imparted by the forces of gravity that puts an object in orbit. Thats a division based upon physical properties. Your division is based upon specialized, uncommon definitions of words and you have yet to provide a reason or any physical evidence of why such an artificial(symbolic) division makes sense. Usually you want symbols to be representative of a real difference. (yet more philosophy)
=====================
=====================
bobdroege says:
bh-Eventually all the planets will spin in one direction and all north poles will point in one direction and all planets will have no seasons. . . .provided of course something else dramatic happens first.
How is that going to happen in accordance with Newtons Laws??????
=======================
The process of gravitational friction is to correct all spins to a single spin in the same direction as orbital spin with a fixed equator in line with a barycenter. That will automatically cause the equators of each planet and their moons to align with their ecliptic plane. When independent spin is eliminated the axis is eliminated and replaced with an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic plane. This is consistent with the recent discovery that the moon’s axis has moved over the past couple of billion years.
bobdroege says:
So I will accept your demurral of doing the experiment as outlined as a claim by you that the moons motions are not in compliance with the rules of rigid body dynamics. Perhaps you could pass that on to your sock puppet.
Not so fast, nothing I have said should be construed as a claim that the Moon does not comply with rigid body dynamics.
=========
hmmmmm, hmmmmm, I said ‘the moon’s motions’ not ‘the moon’.
The short version is this is more a story of inculcation than anything else and best expressed by an old saw: ”give a man a hammer and everything begins to look like a nail”
“The rotation and revolution happen at the same time, so you don’t see all sides of the Moon from Earth“
Which is only possible if you define “revolution” as being motion like Slide 6, curvilinear translation. As I explained:
The Spinner position has to be that the motion of the moon around the Earth is a curvilinear translation (as per slide 6), coupled with a rotation of the moon on its own axis. That is the only way it works for you guys. Needless to say, a translation does not occur about an axis. So you do not have two axes to compare.
Needless to say, a curvilinear translation does occur about axes as in slide 6 and Fig. 2a. It is a rectilinear translation does not occur about an axis.
No, rotation occurs around an axis. Translation does not. Slide 6 and Fig. 2(a) show the object translating due to two fixed pivoting arms. There is no single axis.
“show the object translating due to two fixed pivoting arms.”
Now, laughingly, two fixed pivoting arms are used in place of axis. But, yes the slide 6 vehicle is in curvilinear translation about an external axis that can be found from the two fixed pivoting arms just like in Madhavi Fig. 2a; the vehicle is not rotating on its own axis at all per rev. in curvilinear translation or the lines would cross.
Translation does not occur about an axis. An axis is specifically involved in rotation only.
Needless to say, a curvilinear translation does occur about axes as in slide 6 vehicle and Fig. 2a
Needless to say, Ball4 will not be linking to any text by an author who writes that curvilinear translation is about an axis. Since all text authors write about axes in connection to rotation only.
Ball4 says:
Needless to say, a curvilinear translation does occur about axes as in slide 6 and Fig. 2a. It is a rectilinear translation does not occur about an axis.
================================
Needless to say? You aren’t very observant Ball4. You should note that both slide 6 and Fig. 2a REQUIRE two pivot points that apply a force to the object. Only in that way can the rigid body be both rotated and counter rotated at the same time to keep the rigid body particles pointed in one direction.
Each axis applies a force on the object to accomplish that.
However, this is not the case with an orbit. An orbit is caused by gravity from an axis that both forces the object to orbit and rotate at the same time in one motion about the COG of the orbited object.
One force is sufficient. Like a ball on a string. Or the experiment I outlined with a piece of wood lath and washers.
You just want to extrapolate the tools and starting points of the astronomical trade to an impossible concept.
Give a man a hammer and soon everything starts looking like a nail.
There is no force in the moon’s central axis to force a rotation counter to the rotational axis of the moon’s orbit and the same forces that cause the moon to rotate around the earth like a ball on a string no matter what its starting state was.
Yet you claim some mysterious force to be the cause of the moon’s obvious spin and claim that its exerted through the moon’s central axis. You are totally deluded and totally lack any physical explanation for why this might be the case.
Oh you talk about left over spin and all that rot but that argument falls flat on its face when you are forced to recognize that spin can only be left over if the moon started out spinning in the right direction in the first place.
If it didn’t start out in the right direction, the force from the earth’s COG will totally stop the existing spin and then apply the force necessary to get it to spin in the opposite direction in the physical process of becoming tidal locked.
See slide 16. Needfully said since DREMT can’t count axes or rotation. “The connecting rod undergoes curvilinear translation, since it will remain horizontal as it moves along a circular path.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-474748
Same as the vehicle in slide 6 which doesn’t rotate on its own axis either so that motion cannot be like the moon which rotates on its axis once per rev. of an external axis.
“Only in that way can the rigid body be both rotated and counter rotated” laughingly from the chief pretzel twister. See slide 16 for an example to help you understand bill.
The Hubble staring at a distant galaxy while orbiting earth moves as the horizontal connecting rod.
Oh and, yes, the moon spins per bill: “to get (moon) spin in the opposite direction in the physical process of becoming tidal locked.”
#2
Needless to say, Ball4 will not be linking to any text by an author who writes that curvilinear translation is about an axis. Since all text authors write about axes in connection to rotation only.
#3
Needless to say, Ball4 will not be linking to any text by an author who writes that curvilinear translation is about an axis. Since all text authors write about axes in connection to rotation only.
Interesting how he is ignoring the 2nd axis providing a force to keep the body’s particles in a single direction. . . .exactly as said here weeks ago that if you have a ball on a string revolving around an external axis you will need another axis and another force to unwind that revolution.
\
And as a defense to his ridiculous position his has provided two examples of exactly that.
bobd…”No it’s not, curvilinear translation requires that the Moon would keep pointing in the same direction”.
Lost my place after viewing your link.
It does keep pointing in the same direction, the same face always points toward the Earth. Furthermore, each particle in the Moon moves instantaneously in the same direction along a tangential line at any point in the orbit.
You need to be clear that the Moon is trying to move in a straight line, with the near face always pointing in the same direction. However, Earth’s gravity keeps re-directing the motion from a straight line while keeping a radial line portion through the Moon always perpendicular to a tangent line at each point of the orbit.
The meaning is clear: each point on the Moon is moving in concentric circles/ellipses, and that is curvilinear translation.
Gordon,”
“It does keep pointing in the same direction, the same face always points toward the Earth.
Always pointing towards the earth is not always pointing in the same direction, that direction changes as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
So check the source again, it’s not curvilinear translation.
“Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the
body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”
bobd…”Always pointing towards the earth is not always pointing in the same direction, that direction changes as the Moon revolves around the Earth”.
What does it tell you about the motion of other particles on the Moon when those on the near side are always pointed in? Stop the Moon at 12 o’clock on a flat surface representing the lunar orbital plane. Draw the imaginary radial line from the Earth’s centre through the near face, through the centre and out the far side of the Moon. Now draw three tangential lines perpendicular to the radial line to represent the near face, the centre, and the far face.
Three lines, all parallel. Now start the Moon in its orbit. All the way around the 360 degrees of the orbit, those three tangential lines move parallel to each other. Furthermore, they all travel at the angular velocity of the radial line. That defines curvilinear translation.
There is no rotation of the inner and outer tangential line about the centre at any time, yet a N, S, E, W axis drawn on the Moon would point in all directions of the compass during an orbit.
The rotation about an axis you are seeing is an illusion.
angular velocity! angular velocity!
You wrote no rotation. Couldn’t explain moon motion without rotation after all. True curvilinear translation has no rotation during an orbit Gordon, see slide 6.
Revolution without axial rotation is not your curvilinear translation, slide 6, Ball4. Revolution without axial rotation is motion like a ball on a string.
No, that’s wrong DREMT, see & read slide 6 again, no axial rotation of the vehicle fixed to the support structure. Just orbiting in curvilinear translation like in Fig. 2a.
Unfortunately slide 6 says nothing about revolution or orbiting. So I will have to go with the definition of revolution I found, which describes it as motion like a ball on a string.
See the picture in slide 6.
Yes DREMT, the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev. per the videos.
See a picture of a ball on a string.
Yes Ball4, the ball on a string is not rotating about its own axis, per the videos. It is just revolving, per the definition of revolving which uses a ball on a string as an example.
Yes DREMT, the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev. per the videos and slide 18 definition of revolution.
Simple enough. Ball4 wants to invoke intentional blindness and pretend the moon isn’t moving except on it’s central axis to meet Madhavi’s definition.
”If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration”
Then he wants to go to other figure (where is ‘slide’ 6?) and claim that what Madhavi said is wrong without even providing any evidence.
There is no definition of revolution on slide 18.
DREMT is reading challenged for slide 18. I respect that, won’t make any unfair comments.
Madhavi is not wrong bill. Slide 6 and Fig. 2a are in agreement.
Ball4 says:
Madhavi is not wrong bill. Slide 6 and Fig. 2a are in agreement.
=======================
You are correct Madhavi is not wrong. You are. Slide 27 proves it.
I agree with Madhavi, slide 6,18,and 27 and the videos showing the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev. Heck even ClintR now agrees slide 6 is not the motion of the moon.
Nobody has ever said slide 6 is motion as per the moon.
Poor Ball4 is very confused.
Well, except for Gordon.
Wrong, because when Gordon refers to “curvilinear translation” in the context of the moon’s motion, he is not referring to motion as per slide 6.
Gordon is doubly wrong, two wrongs do not make it right. ClintR says the moon is not translating and not rotating, neither do those two wrongs make it right.
Reality is in the videos: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external axis at the center of the orbit, only.
As Norman agrees. Like most sensible people, Norman is at least aware that the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis. Norman is a “soft” Spinner. You and blob are “hard” Spinners. To you, even the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis. You have no ability whatsoever to acknowledge the existence of rotation about an external axis, with no axial rotation. Your minds are completely welded shut.
The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev. To make that reality, draw a chalk circle properly on the ball on a string and make a video. Or just watch the videos again.
I really do have the ability to acknowledge the existence of rotation about an external axis with no axial rotation as that is depicted on slide 6 picture, discussed therein, and defined on slide 18; that motion is termed curvilinear translation just like Fig. 2a in Madhavi. As ClintR brilliantly noted, slide 6 is NOT the motion of the moon.
“Curvilinear translation” is not “rotation about an external axis without axial rotation”. This is precisely where your argument fails. Curvilinear translation is not rotation of any kind.
“Curvilinear translation” on slide 6 is depicted in real life as “rotation about an external axis without axial rotation” by inspection along with Madhavi drawing Fig. 2a so no failure.
Curvilinear translation is not AXIAL rotation of any kind that’s why they call it translation and “curvi” because the curvilinear translation object is revolving about an external axis see slide 18.
So now Ball4 has decided a translation is a rotation!
Amazing stuff…
“…the curvilinear translation object is revolving about an external axis see slide 18”
Do you hear yourself? An object that is in curvilinear translation is not revolving around any “axis”. An axis means there is rotation, not translation.
The depicted vehicle that is in curvilinear translation is revolving around an external “axis”, which is the whole point of the ride! If the car just sat there, who would pay to ride? DREMT of course. An internal axis means there is rotation, an external axis means revolution as on page 18. For the moon, both axes exist just like the ball on string reality video shows.
The pivoting arms are attached at two different points, meaning there is not one external axis for the vehicle.
There is no axis involved with a translation!
Ok, external axes. There is one axis center of vehicle orbit that can be found analytically combining the two axes shown, likely under the ~cg of the vehicle.
As in Madhavi Fig. 2a.
There is no axis involved with a translation.
Objects rotate around axes.
Two relevant types of translation: rectilinear (no axis Fig. 1) and curvilinear (external axis of revolution as in slide 6, Fig. 2a).
#2
There is no axis involved with a translation.
Objects rotate around axes.
ball4…”True curvilinear translation has no rotation ”
That’s right and at no time in the Moon’s orbit is it rotating. There is no angular velocity about an axis.
You claim a N, S, E, W axis imposed on the Moon is rotating. Show me the angular velocity of the rotation? First, you need a force or a torque tangential to the surface of the Moon acting around an axis. Where is it?
You are referencing a fictitious force and if you look for it you won’t find it.
“Show me the angular velocity of the rotation?”
See the reality of moon’s angular rotation about its axis depicted in the videos: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Same as the moon, ISS, chalk circle, Fig. 2b.
“Where is it?”
Came from the spinning material that coalesced into the moon, not fictitious. Looked for it, found it!
The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, same as every other part of the mgr. Just a fact for you.
The videos defeat DREMT’s absurd fact & show the reality of the chalk circle motion same as ball on string: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
The videos show a ball on a string not rotating on its own axis but rotating around the center of the orbit.
Somehow DREMT leaves out a few words: The videos show a ball on a string not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev. while rotating around the center of the orbit.
The transmographer proves that the result of two simultaneous rotations would be that the ball wraps around the string.
Wrap around only occurs if ball rotates more or less than once on its axis per rev. as per the videos.
#2
The transmographer proves that the result of two simultaneous rotations would be that the ball wraps around the string.
#4
Earth to Ball4: Do the experiment!
bobd…”Because, the line from the center of mass of the Moon to some fixed star, intersects the surface of the Moon at some point p, and that point p is moving across the surface of the Moon, hence the Moon is rotating on its axis”.
Pretend the Moon in on a polar orbit with the Moon following the Greenwich meridian. As it sits momentarily over the North Pole it is in line with Polaris. So a radial line from the centre of the Moon to Polaris contacts the Moon’s surface at point p, on the far side. The moment the Moon moves a fraction of a degree in it’s orbit, the radial line to Polaris is broken, but the remainder of the line from point p to Polaris continues to create an imaginary mark on the surface of the Moon’a far side.
It’s apparent that the mark caused by p is due to the Moon’s motion in its orbit, not due to the rotation of the Moon about its axis.
Gordon,
“Pretend the Moon in on a polar orbit with the Moon following the Greenwich meridian.”
That’s quite a complicated orbit, you know the Greenwich Meridian is rotating, right?
Keep it simple, but no simpler than the actual orbit and rotation of the moon, this means the coin models, the merry-go-round, and baseballs and basketballs are no good for the Earth Moon system.
If the mark makes a circle on the Moon, and it would, then that means the Moon is rotating.
That and check the definition of curvilinear translation in the text provided.
In curvilinear translation, the lines never meet, in the motion of the Moon, after a month, they retrace the lines, hence the Moon rotates.
“this means the coin models, the merry-go-round, and baseballs and basketballs are no good for the Earth Moon system.”
…and earlier:
“The ball on a string is an inadequate model to answer the question on the Moon’s rotation.”
It’s weird how they draw the line at certain things. blob knows that he would look stupid saying the chalk circle on the merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis, but he’s OK with saying the ball on a string is. But a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis either. Even Norman agrees with that. So you have different levels for every commenter:
Ball4: says even the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis.
blob: won’t say the chalk circle is, but happy with the ball on a string.
Norman: won’t say the chalk circle or ball on a string is, but happy with the moon.
Good test question for ”how much absurdity are you willing to cop to in order to polish your credentials as a sycophant for yo daddy?”
At least Norman isn’t extrapolating what his daddy says.
If I pull a DREMPTY trick and place my non-inertial reference frame at the center of the chalk circle, then indeed I will observe the chalk circle rotating on its own axis.
But it’s still not a good model for the Moon.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Check fig 5, since you are still confused about the definition of rotation.
bobdroege says:
If I pull a DREMPTY trick and place my non-inertial reference frame at the center of the chalk circle, then indeed I will observe the chalk circle rotating on its own axis.
But its still not a good model for the Moon.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Check fig 5, since you are still confused about the definition of rotation.
=============================
Point O for the moon is not fixed as in Fig. 5 its rotating around the earth’s COM.
What figure 5 depicts is: ”Motion about a fixed point. The three-dimensional motion of a rigid body attached at a fixed point O, for example the motion of a top on a rough floor (Fig. 5) is known as motion about a fixed point.”
The motion Madhavi is referring to is not a motion of the fixed point O going around the earth, but instead the motion of the axis of the top in precession.
Thus even the 366th sidereal rotation of the earth in a year is in fact a rotation around the sun, not around its own axis. So the earth has 366 sidereal rotations per year, 365 around it own axis and one around the COM of the sun. The moon has 13 sidereal rotation in a year of which 12 are around the earth’s COM and one around the Sun’s COM.
Jump to a galactic year and you will have to multiple those numbers above by the number of earth years (230mm) and then add one more for the rotation around the galaxy COM.
“Thats quite a complicated orbit, you know the Greenwich Meridian is rotating, right?”
You’re right, in a way, but the Moon moves so slowly wrt Earth’s rotation that you could reference the GM each night at the same time, while on the GM, and watch the Moon progress toward the NP.
I have been watching the Moon the last few nights around 10 PM. It’s apparent path is slightly north of West to slightly south of East and it moves about 10 degrees per night toward the East. It’s actually moving almost perpendicular to the NS Earth axis so I used the Greenwich meridian as a reference point for the imaginary polar orbit. Obviously I was not thinking too well at the time.
“If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
One thing certain the particles in the lunar COM are moving along curved paths.
No for certain bill, see slide 6.
Ball4 says:
No for certain bill.
=======================
What! The moon’s CM travels around the earth at more than 2,000 miles/hour and you say its not moving along a curved path?
I say see slide 6, bill. That is not the moon’s motion as the moon is rotating once on its own axis per rev. to keep same face pointed at earth.
So you agree that the moon’s CM is rotating around the earth’s CM?
I agree with slide 6, bill. You should too.
Ball4 avoids the question.
No, the answer is on slide 6.
Are you sure bill even knows what slide 6 is? Maybe you could provide a link directly to your source, to help him out.
Then he will be able to see that slide 6 does not contain the answer to his question.
bill is quite capable of finding slide 6 and learning the answer.
Slide 6 is just a picture and accompanying text which explains nothing more than an example of curvilinear translation.
Ball4 says:
bill is quite capable of finding slide 6 and learning the answer.
========================
You don’t know how to post a proper reference or a link?
Here you go, Bill, I will do his job for him:
https://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
The amusement ride shown in slide 6 is NOT the motion of Moon. The pivot arms are attached to the base at different points. Move both pivot arms to the same point on the base and you have “orbiting”, the motion of Moon.
Very good ClintR, slide 6 is NOT the motion of the moon because the vehicle is NOT rotating on its own axis while it orbits or the occupants would surely complain. As DREMT explains, slide 6 is curvilinear translation while orbiting also shown in Fig. 2a.
Very good, Ball4. You found yet another distraction from reality. I’ll add it to the growing list:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
NASA ISS Flight Director’s example of revolving (orbiting) is exactly what Moon is doing. The fact that we only see one side of Moon from Earth means it is not rotating about its axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Here you go, Bill, I will do his job for him:
===================================
Thanks dremt. Guess it was too difficult for Ball4.
Anyway his claim the moon translates in its orbit is absolutely wrong and the source he is using states it clearly.
Slide 17:
”all points on a rigid body subject to either rectilinear or curvilinear translation move with the same velocity and acceleration.”
Boom!! Eliminates the moon orbiting as all particles have a velocity that varies by a ratio of the circumference of their position in orbit.
As ClintR noted, that does mean slide 6 is not the motion of the moon only translating while orbiting. The motion of the moon therefore HAS to include rotation on its own axis.
ClintR writes NASA ISS Flight Director’s Robert Frost 2016 example of revolving (orbiting) is exactly what Moon is doing: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.” in agreement with ClintR about curvilinear translation: “The amusement ride shown in slide 6 is NOT the motion of Moon.”
To revolve means to rotate about an external axis.
Ball4 is instead trying to define revolution as curvilinear translation.
Translation is not a rotation. There is no axis without a rotation.
So Ball4 is wrong.
Ball4 is instead trying to define revolution as slide 18 NOT slide 6 which includes BOTH curvilinear translation and revolution which have different definitions per the slides.
That is just obfuscation.
Ball4 says:
”Ball4 is instead trying to define revolution as slide 18 NOT slide 6 which includes BOTH curvilinear translation and revolution which have different definitions per the slides.”
=============================
Gotcha Blob!
You want to define the moon’s motion as all particles moving with the same velocity and acceleration at the same time as they are not moving at the same velocity and acceleration.
I think it’s time for you and your sock puppet to retire.
Whatever you think I may want is irrelevant bill, I’ll go with ClintR’s NASA ISS Flight Director’s Robert Frost 2016 example of revolving (orbiting) is exactly what Moon is doing: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
You want to define the moons motion as all particles moving with the same velocity and acceleration at the same time as they are not moving at the same velocity and acceleration.
I had already caught that b4. No need to repeat yourself or make an appeal to authority. None of that is science. either those particles are moving at the same rate or they are not. Real simple. You can stick your head in the clouds and imagine the impossible but that doesn’t make it so.
An appeal to authority is no issue when the authority has experimental evidence such as Robert Frost does with the ISS. Go with reality, bill, as reality is observed in the videos: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Same as the moon & ISS.
Ball4 the same experiment proves that its not rotating around its own axis.
Thats why an understanding of physics is necessary so you can understand whats happening. An experiment that has no difference in appearance needs to be analyzed in light of physics. When you do that the answer is clear the moon rotates around the earth and the earth does not rotate around the moon. The laws of physics will specify which object rotates around the other object.
The earth/moon barycenter is inside of the earth thus its impossible for the earth to be rotating around the moon. When the objects get close in size then it becomes less clear.
But you really have to drop this earth rotating around the moon business it really makes you look silly.
Bill Hunter,
Looks like too much Floyd is having deleterious effects, try some Dead, it’s more mellow.
“Gotcha Blob!
You want to define the moons motion as all particles moving with the same velocity and acceleration at the same time as they are not moving at the same velocity and acceleration.
I think its time for you and your sock puppet to retire.”
Nope, I haven’t defined it that way, I have argued that all particles are moving with different velocities, due to the near side making smaller ellipses than the far side, therefore either the Moon is pulled apart or it turns, pick one.
All particles are moving with different velocities, due to the near side making smaller ellipses than the far side, because the Moon is revolving, and not rotating on its own axis.
I’ve never picked up this earth rotating around the moon business so dropping it seems rather paranormal on bill’s part 10:33pm.
The videos prove reality, bill, pick them up and don’t drop them, study the videos closely: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis.
The moon is not rotating on its own axis.
ball4…”the moon is rotating once on its own axis per rev. to keep same face pointed at earth”.
Not possible. Three tangential lines, through a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre, one at near face, one at centre, and one at far side, always move parallel to each other. If there is local rotation, the portion of the radial line through the Moon has to break with the rest of the radial line and rotate. That means the near side moves away as it rotates.
bobdroege says:
”Nope, I havent defined it that way, I have argued that all particles are moving with different velocities, due to the near side making smaller ellipses than the far side, therefore either the Moon is pulled apart or it turns, pick one.”
Yep exactly like a chalked circle on an mgr deck.
“Not possible.”
The videos confirm it is possible, go with reality, Gordon, as reality is observed in the videos: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Same as the moon, ISS, chalk circle, Fig. 2b.
Ball4 says:
”Ive never picked up this earth rotating around the moon business so dropping it seems rather paranormal on bills part 10:33pm.
The videos prove reality, bill, pick them up and dont drop them, study the videos closely: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.”
A simple experiment should suffice. get yourself a small piece of wood like a piece of plaster lath at the lumber store.
buy two washers and nuts and bolts long enough to reach through the wood, washer and nut and leave enough bolt threads sticking out so you can hold on to it.
Leave one washer plain and paint the other blue to represent the earth.
drill one hole at each end of the piece of wood and screw a washer, nut, and bolt to each end of the wood.
Screw them down tight.
Now grab the screw on the plain washer and rotate the piece of wood around the screw so both the wood and the plain washer is rotating. You will observe that the washer representing the earth is revolving around the plain washer that represents the moon.
Now take a magic marker and mark the moon washer on the side that points to the earth washer.
Try and find a way to rotate the moon washer in such a way that the mark on the moon washer continues to point at the earth washer and without the earth orbiting the moon..
When you are completely frustrated then you can grab the end of the bolt going through the earth washer and rotate the wood piece around the earth washer to your hearts content while the mark on the moon washer continues to point at earth. You will have discovered that the moon indeed rotates around the earth like a ball on a string.
I already know that the moon indeed rotates around the earth like a ball on a string, bill, by inspection of the videos and your 5:59pm clip. The construction project, done properly, shows that too just like Gordon’s coins, the ISS, chalk circle, Fig. 2b.
…with no axial rotation.
…the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Ball4 says:
”the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.”
Earth to Ball4. . . .do the experiment!
Your experiment already done bill, see the ball on string videos.
Replace the ball on string with some wood lath, washers, nuts and bolts. Take the magic marker, mark the moon washer, rotate the moon washer on its axis in such a way that the mark on the moon washer continues to point at the earth washer once per rev. and with the moon orbiting the earth – just like in the video & fig. 2b.
No need to rotate the washer Ball4. Its already rotating like a ball on a string around the earth without any rotation on its bolt.
Same as reality is observed in the videos: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
The videos show the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis but is rotating around the center of the orbit.
Somehow DREMT leaves out a few words of reality: The videos show a ball on a string not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev. while rotating around the center of the orbit.
The transmographer proves that the result of two simultaneous rotations would be that the ball wraps around the string.
Here DREMPTY, I am here to help!
Here is a definition you seem to be using the term incorrectly.
https://www.google.com/search?q=simultaneous&rlz=1C1GCEV_en&oq=simultaneous&aqs=chrome..0j69i57j0l6.8751j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The transmographer proves that the result of two simultaneous rotations would be that the ball wraps around the string so the moon only rotates on its own axis once per rev.
Ball4 lies about the transmographer.
“The transmographer proves that the result of two simultaneous rotations would be that the ball wraps around the string so the moon only rotates on its own axis once per rev.“
Actually I take that back…the only way to read this is that Ball4 recognizes his definition of “rev” is not a rotation about an external axis. Looks like he is making progress, finally. However, his definition of revolution is at odds with the ones already provided.
bobdroege says:
Here DREMPTY, I am here to help!
Here is a definition you seem to be using the term incorrectly.
======================================
Its not helping when you get it absolutely backwards. DREMT is saying if you have the moon rotating around the earth and rotating on its own axis at the same time, in call frames of reference, the moon will be changing it sides towards the earth. Period.
You should realize you are the one trying to use a unique unrealistic frame of reference where the moon is not revolving around the earth but instead you incorrectly claim its translating when its not. Translation never involves revolution, rotation, or spin.
So what you dream up is the moon revolving around the earth while spinning one turn in the opposite direction of that rotation to maintain a common frame of reference wrt the stars. And by proclamation as opposed to demonstration you claim your concept to be reality.
Better get off that juicy fruit stuff guy!
Ball4 recognizes definition of “rev” as an orbit about an external axis & demonstrated by the ball on string reality video showing the ball not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev. about an external axis.
Then your definition of revolution is motion as per slide 6, curvilinear translation. Only trouble with that is, translation does not occur about an axis. Plus you still need a source to back up your definition.
“So what you dream up is the moon revolving around the earth while spinning one turn in the opposite direction”
No dream up bill, what is demonstrated by the ball on string reality video is the ball not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev. about an external axis.
A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
A ball on a string is absolutely not rotating on its own axis.
A non-spinner counting: … -1,0,ignore,2,3,4 …
Incorrect, Ball4. A ball on a string is making one motion only: a rotation about an axis that is external to the ball.
Yep, a non-spinner counting: … -1,0,ignore,2,3,4…
A ball on a string is making one motion only: a rotation about an axis that is external to the ball.
Ball on string has two motions like the vertical connecting rod on slide 16.
Only if you define revolution incorrectly.
Yes revolution is NOT a synonym for translation but revolution is a synonym for:
rotation
circle
whirl
twirl
spin
wheel
roll
round
cycle
circuit
lap
and translation is a synonym for:
relocation
transfer
transferral
move
moving
movement
removal
shift
conveyance
conveying
transport
transportation
Demonstrating they have no meaning in common.
You guys need to dream up yet another argument.
“Only if you define revolution incorrectly.”
I’ll go with correct def. on slide 16, slide 18, Madhavi and the videos.
For bill: if revolution is truly synonym for those, then substitute in slide 18 1 revolution = 2 pi:
1 rotation = 2 pi
1 circle = 2 pi
1 whirl = 2 pi
1 twirl = 2 pi
1 spin = 2 pi
1 wheel = 2 pi
1 roll = 2 pi
1 round = 2 pi
1 cycle = 2 pi
1 circuit = 2 pi
1 lap = 2 pi
Looks to me maybe only some of those really make much sense.
OK Ball4, you go with your imaginary definitions.
Ball4 says:
July 2, 2020 at 4:59 PM
Only if you define revolution incorrectly.
Ill go with correct def. on slide 16, slide 18, Madhavi and the videos.
For bill: if revolution is truly synonym for those, then substitute in slide 18 1 revolution = 2 pi:
1 rotation = 2 pi
1 circle = 2 pi
1 whirl = 2 pi
1 twirl = 2 pi
1 spin = 2 pi
1 wheel = 2 pi
1 roll = 2 pi
1 round = 2 pi
1 cycle = 2 pi
1 circuit = 2 pi
1 lap = 2 pi
Looks to me maybe only some of those really make much sense.
====================================
Well lets mark that response wrong. 1 revolution doesn’t equal 2 pi. 1 revolution equals 2pi radians which would be the correct way to measure the rotations of all the above. Certainly you can design some of the actions above in ways that they would not exactly equal 2 pi radians with humps and bumps but still they would be roughly 2 pi radians in the most common configurations thus at least sometimes an absolute synonym even though for some uses not a precise synonym.
Translation though doesn’t even enter that ballpark.
So lets take two points off for getting this question so wrong. . . .and maybe more if you are going to continue to argue with the professor.
The videos are not imaginary.
The videos are not definitions of revolution.
The videos are revolution reality no matter what DREMT writes.
No matter what Ball4 writes, the videos are not definitions of revolution.
Ball4 says:
An appeal to authority is no issue when the authority has experimental evidence such as Robert Frost does with the ISS. Go with reality, bill, as reality is observed in the videos: the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
Same as the moon & ISS.
==========================================
A ball on a string can’t rotate on its own axis Ball4. It rotates around the astronauts hand or in the case of the moon and ISS they rotate around the COM of earth.
Yet the video shows the ball makes exactly one rotation on its own axis for each rev., no more no less. Reality is tough to take sometimes, but there it is.
Indeed thats possible but if and only if the earth is rotating around the moon. Each pair of objects in space will have the dominant body around which the submissive body will rotate. Reality to you is a combination of a lack of understanding and excessive faith in authority.
If you want to contend that the moon is almost like a free spinning body and the only thing lacking is something that can spin it on its axis. . . .then you would be right.
ball4….”Yet the video shows the ball makes exactly one rotation on its own axis for each rev., no more no less. Reality is tough to take sometimes, but there it is”.
In order to rotate on its own axis, the ball must have a force applied tangential to the point where the string attaches, or have an existing angular momentum. Do you see a force applied there other than the centripetal force applied by the string? Do you see an existing angular momentum? All it has, like the Moon, is a linear momentum.
Also, the ball must be free to rotate about its axis but it can’t because the string is holding it. The only way it could rotate about its axis would be for it to wind itself up in the string. Within a few revolutions the string would be so short the ball would jam against the astronaut’s hand.
I think you may live in an alternate reality.
“Do you see a force applied there other than the centripetal force applied by the string?”
Yes, an equal, opposite shear force in the string. But I doubt Gordon understands that.
“The only way it could rotate about its axis would be for it to wind itself up in the string.”
Only if the ball rotates on its axis more or less than once per rev. which the videos confirm it does not.
A chalk circle drawn on a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about an axis at the center of the orbit, same as every other part of the string-and-ball combo. Just another fact for you.
…the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
#2
Earth to Ball4. . . .do the experiment!
Done. See the videos for reality.
Videos? If you really did the experiment I know the results and so do you.
The videos are reality, bill.
…and they do not show what you think they do.
Videos show reality, DREMT.
…and yet, the transmographer proves you wrong.
#3
Earth to Ball4. . . .do the experiment!
I did. Your experiment shows exactly the same as Gordon’s coins and the reality videos show…the ball on a string, ISS, moon, washer, coin et. al. not rotating about their own axis more or less than once per rev. If the ball did so, then it would wrap the string.
#2
…and yet, the transmographer proves you wrong.
The transmographer should prove that the result of two simultaneous rotations would be that the ball wraps around the string but the ball only rotates on its axis once per rev. in the reality videos so no wrapping occurs.
#5
Earth to Ball4. . . .do the experiment!
ball4…”Yes, an equal, opposite shear force in the string. But I doubt Gordon understands that”.
A shear force would act perpendicular to the string, and unless applied by scissors would only bend the string. Obviously there was no shear forces in atronaut example.
You are referring to a tensile force, and there is only one, the centripetal force I mentioned.
“Only if the ball rotates on its axis more or less than once per rev. which the videos confirm it does not”.
You are completely lost. The attached string prevents a rotation about its axis.
It’s not that hard to visualize the tangential lines I mentioned, unless, of course, you don’t want to see.
Yes, the shear force acts perpendicular to the taut string to keep the ball rotating once on its axis per rev. It is not a tensile force. The videos are reality Gordon, they prove you are wrong by simple inspection. The attached string prevents more or less than one ball rotation on its own axis thus keep it from wrapping up the string.
ball4…”the shear force acts perpendicular to the taut string to keep the ball rotating once on its axis per rev”.
No tangential force on the ball only momentum which I have referred to in past posts as a pseudo-force. I inferred that because it takes a force to produce momentum and an equal and opposite force to stop it.
Momentum is actually a form of force which Newton referenced as an internal force that tends to keep a mass moving. It’s not officially a force, however, since it lacks the change in velocity (deceleration) required to stop the mass in motion.
If you apply a counter force over a period of time, however, you can stop momentum. And, if a mass with momentum mv crashes into another mass, it will create a force if the other mass can stop the momentum of the mass in motion.
At the time, we were looking for a way to express force vectors with gravitational force on the Moon and the Moon’s momentum. We can a draw a vector along a radial line from Moon to Earth which is the gravitational force vector. I suggested we can create a pseudo-force vector tangential to the radial line if we calculate the force required to stop the momentum of the Moon. The instantaneous resultant of those two vectors is the orbital path.
I don’t see how that’s any different than using a vector to represent a Coriolis force. It’s a pseudo-force as well, called a fictitious force.
“I don’t see how…”
Gordon can see how in reality by watching the ball on string videos where the ball is seen to not be rotating on its axis more or less than once per rev.
In the ball on string videos the ball is seen not rotating on its own axis at all, it is seen rotating about an axis at the center of the orbit, only.
Which “only” proves the non-spinners can’t count. In the ball on string videos the ball is seen not rotating on its own axis more or less than once.
In the ball on string videos the ball is seen not rotating on its own axis at all, it is seen rotating about an axis at the center of the orbit, only.
Like I wrote, DREMT can’t count to 1.
You seem to be either stuck on zero, or skip one and go directly to many.
DREMPTY’s arithmetic counting method: zero, many.
Yes: … -1,0, ignore, 2,3,4,…
Or perhaps you are just continually missing the point.
Could it be that we are missing the point because the point is wrong?
Ball4 and Bobdroege not both go full on imagination of physical processes they extrapolated from the hammers given them in school.
This like the little photon particles flying around in all directions with imaginary attributes and measuring devices counting all the cold photons that hit the sensor.
Guys you can have your imaginary line and your imaginary attributes of that line if you wish. Just keep in mind thats more akin to religion than physics.
The Spinner position has to be that the motion of the moon around the Earth is a curvilinear translation (as per slide 6), coupled with a rotation of the moon on its own axis. That is the only way it works for you guys. Needless to say, a translation does not occur about an axis. So you do not have two axes to compare.
If you have the moon rotating about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, and rotating about its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about two simultaneous rotations, which was proven by the transmographer.
Except we do have two axes to compare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.svg
The dotted red and the solid red arrow.
Two axes, no curvilinear translation, because the Moon doesn’t point in the same direction all the time, which is required for curvilinear translation.
Fig 2a, slide 4 of Dr. M. Madhavi.
You have misunderstood. I am not saying that the Spinner’s position is that the moon is in curvilinear translation. I am saying that the Spinner’s position is that the moon is in curvilinear translation (which is how Spinners define “revolving”) plus it is rotating on its own axis. Two motions added together. Are you capable of mentally adding two motions together, blob?
…plus moon is rotating on its own axis once per rev. no more, no less.
That is the Spinner position, indeed.
DREMTPY,
It should be obvious, even to the most stubborn observer that I can visualize two motions added together, because that is what I have been arguing the whole time. And the diagram I referred you to shows. Did you even bother to look at it?
I don’t define revolution as curvilinear translation.
Now it’s my turn, you don’t understand the spinner position.
It is not a combination of curvilinear translation plus rotation. It is not that revolving is curvilinear translation.
It is revolution, which is rotation around an axis that is not within the body that is rotation, and rotation which is rotation about an axis within the body, at the same time.
Which is supported by the diagram I reference which shows there are two axes, one the Moon rotates around and one the Moon revolves around.
Now at least you should be able to explain the spinners position even if you don’t support it.
As I rightly said, it (the Spinner’s position) being a combination of curvilinear translation plus rotation is the only way it works for you guys. That is the only way that adding two motions together comes back with us seeing only one side of the moon from Earth.
“It is revolution, which is rotation around an axis that is not within the body that is rotation, and rotation which is rotation about an axis within the body, at the same time.”
Wrong, because in that case you would see all sides of the moon from Earth, as proven by the transmographer. A rotation around an axis that is not within the body that is rotating is already motion as per the moon, you see. As also proven by the transmographer.
Thank you for proving that you are unable to correctly add two motions together.
Wrong, because the rotation and revolution happen at the same time, keeping the same side facing the earth.
You are confused about your transmographer because it does the rotation and revolution for you at the same time.
It doesn’t do revolution without rotation for you.
The motion of the Moon is rotation and revolution at the same time.
The only way that adding two motions together at the same time results in us seeing only one side of the moon from Earth, is if those two motions are curvilinear translation and axial rotation. Whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not, the Spinner position is that revolution is curvilinear translation.
If you want revolution to be defined correctly, as rotation around an axis that is not within the body that is rotating, you need to switch sides to the Non-Spinners.
Shall I put you down as a Non-Spinner?
Non-spinners: The only way that adding two motions together at the same time results in us seeing only one side of the moon from Earth, is if those two motions are curvilinear translation and ignore axial rotation once on moon’s axis per rev.
… -1,0,ignore,2,3,4…
No, Ball4.
Non-Spinners: we see one side of the moon from Earth because it is making one motion. A rotation around an axis that is external to the body that is rotating.
You aren’t specific enough about axes to make any sense. See slide 16. Horizontal connecting rod has one motion, curvilinear translation; it is orbiting an external central axis. Shows all sides to center.
The vertical connecting rod has two motions superposed: curvilinear translation orbiting an external central axis AND rotation on its own axis.
Ball4, if you don’t understand by this stage, I don’t know how to help you any further. It’s not like I haven’t tried.
I see a problem with your analysis DR DREMPTY,
You think we are adding two motions together, that’s not exactly true.
The two motions do not need to be added together they exist as independent motions, orbiting and rotating.
One motion has zero rotations per orbit and one motion has one rotation per orbit.
We define orbiting as motion in a path around another object with rotation as a separate issue.
Add them together and you still have one rotation per orbit.
Shall I mark you as a spinner?
“A rotation around an axis that is external to the body that is rotating.”
You are saying the body is rotating. Twice. That is the spinner position, there are two rotations, yet the object still keeps one face to the inside of the orbit. But we like to call one of the rotations something else so people don’t get confused like you.
“You think we are adding two motions together, that’s not exactly true.
The two motions do not need to be added together they exist as independent motions, orbiting and rotating.”
Yes, I am aware that is how you see it. That is also how we see it, though one of the motions (orbiting) we define differently to you.
“One motion has zero rotations per orbit and one motion has one rotation per orbit.”
The motion with zero rotations per orbit has to be curvilinear translation, as I said. That is the only way your position works – if you define revolution as curvilinear translation.
“That is the spinner position, there are two rotations, yet the object still keeps one face to the inside of the orbit. But we like to call one of the rotations something else so people don’t get confused like you.”
If the object were rotating about an external axis whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. As the transmographer proved. Sorry blob, you are wrong about that, and always will be.
If the object were rotating about an external axis whilst also rotating on its own axis more or less than once, you would see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
DREMT just ignores counting 1:
….-1,0,ignore,2,3,4….
If the object were rotating about an external axis whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. As the transmographer proved. Sorry Ball4, you are wrong about that, and always will be.
Ball4 says:
Non-spinners: The only way that adding two motions together at the same time results in us seeing only one side of the moon from Earth, is if those two motions are curvilinear translation and ignore axial rotation once on moons axis per rev.
-1,0,ignore,2,3,4
=======================================
Well since curvilinear translation isn’t a revolution adding an spin on the moon’s axis will still expose all sides of the moon to the earth.
1 revolution = 2 pi radians for the horizontal connecting rod orbiting in curvilinear translation slide 16. But of course that 1 is to be ignored by non-spinners:
… -1,0,ignore,2,3,4…
Revolution does not equal curvilinear translation. The Spinners are wrong.
bill (and dremt)…”since curvilinear translation isnt a revolution…”
Why? This video explains it using math and the ball on a string. The only difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation is that the latter uses polar coordinates rather than Cartesian coordinates. I am referring of course to a constrained body like the ball on the string or a tidally-locked Moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdtzuJG97AY
The Non-Spinners see revolution as motion like a ball on a string. Seems you agree with that, Gordon. If you want to label that motion as curvilinear translation then OK, but it does confuse the issue somewhat. I have been referring to curvilinear translation as being motion where the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout, which is unlike a ball on a string.
dremt…”I have been referring to curvilinear translation as being motion where the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout, which is unlike a ball on a string”.
I agree with you re the ball on the string but there is a lot of confusion on the Net about the meaning of curvilinear translation, which is often interchanged with curvilinear motion. In physics, translation is defined as the translation of axes, as Cartesian Coordinate axes, ‘OR’ as the change of position of a body.
That gets confused with curvilinear motion which is not dependent on axes and also the motion of a particle as opposed to the motion of a rigid body.
If you only regard the translation of an x-y axis, and you move it in a circle, then the axis has to remain upright around the circle. However, if you consider the translation of a rigid body attached to an axle, so that the body changes POSITION throughout the circle, then you have translation without rotation. It’s not rectilinear translation because the rigid body follows a circular path therefore it must be curvilinear translation.
That’s what we are debating with the spinners. An axis through the Moon with N, S, E, and W is changing POSITION throughout the orbit but the axis is not rotating about its centre. It’s changing position because it is attached to a rigid body that is rotating and it cannot rotate because it is attached to the rigid radial rod. Same with the ball on the string.
I blame the authors of textbooks for getting far too myopic regarding the distinction between curvilinear and rectilinear translation. Many are talking about the curvilinear translation of an axis hence the example of a bus rotating on two radial arms in which the passengers are always upright. There is nothing in the definition of curvilinear translation that refers to only the translation of an x-y axis.
Rectilinear translation is often defined as having the properties that all particles on the body must follow parallel lines and move at the same velocity. When applied to the curvilinear translation of a rigid body attached to a radial rod on an axle, the revolving body meets the requirements of curvilinear translation exactly. That is, all points on the body move along parallel lines (instantaneous tangential lines) and at the same velocity of the rotating radial arm.
There is simply not enough rigor in the definition of curvilinear translation to claim that is wrong. If you watch the video at the link I supplied, the guy works out the math for it.
Ball4 says:
1 revolution = 2 pi radians for the horizontal connecting rod orbiting in curvilinear translation slide 16. But of course that 1 is to be ignored by non-spinners:
… -1,0,ignore,2,3,4…
==============================
Slide 16 has nothing to do with the earth and moon. Now you are flopping around on the deck like a dead fish looking for anything that has curvilinear translation and rotation on the same page.
Slide 16 defines objects in curvilinear translation orbiting about an external axis and rotation on an internal axis so of course someone that has demononstrated doesn’t understand those rigid body dynamics terms would write slide 16 has nothing to do with the earth and moon.
Revolution is not your slide 6 curvilinear translation, Ball4. Revolution is a rotation about an external axis.
Ball4 says:
Slide 16 defines objects in curvilinear translation orbiting about an external axis and rotation on an internal axis so of course someone that has demononstrated doesnt understand those rigid body dynamics terms would write slide 16 has nothing to do with the earth and moon.
======================================
Fig. 16 is an embarrassment to the author. There are 3 connecting rods all doing different things yet he only talks about 2 and doesn’t specify which ones he is talking about. Then says 1 connecting rod is both translating and rotating. Since none of the connecting rods are labeled its a amateurish attempt and explaining something. If I drew a diagram like that in one omy classes I would get marked down for failing to label the parts properly.
Author “doesn’t specify which ones he is talking about.”
So I did. One connecting rod is labelled so when the author talks about curvilinear translation the author means the one so labeled. When the author discusses “both translate and rotate” he means the connecting rod NOT labeled curvilinear translation. If bill understood the terms, then bill would be able to figure this out.
Ball4 says:
Author “doesn’t specify which ones he is talking about.”
So I did. One connecting rod is labelled so when the author talks about curvilinear translation the author means the one so labeled. When the author discusses “both translate and rotate” he means the connecting rod NOT labeled curvilinear translation. If bill understood the terms, then bill would be able to figure this out.
============================
I see the piston on the far right in rectilinear motion, the connecting rod connecting to it in general planar motion, the wheel rotating, the connecting rod to the right of it in curvilinear translation, and the connecting rod attached to the pivot point rotating.
I don’t see in in a combined curvilinear/rotation motion unless he is talking about the two rods hinged together as if it were one rod.
Now all you need to do is specify where the earth is and where the moon is.
…and the vertical connecting rod attached to the pivot point rotating about its own axis as well as translating with the piston up and down, combined motion similar the moon, ball on string videos, chalk circle. The main difference being the vertical connecting rod does not perform a complete rotation on its own axis once per rev. like the others.
The horizontal connecting does complete the entire revolution (orbit) around an external axis like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy.
Ball4 says:
…and the vertical connecting rod attached to the pivot point rotating about its own axis as well as translating with the piston up and down, combined motion similar the moon, ball on string videos, chalk circle. The main difference being the vertical connecting rod does not perform a complete rotation on its own axis once per rev. like the others.
The horizontal connecting does complete the entire revolution (orbit) around an external axis like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy.
===================================
You have a serious problem there Ball4. I can indeed see the middle connecting rod in curvilinear translation and rotating on axes at both ends of it at the same time. Say we ignore one of those axes? And you indeed have picture of the Hubble staring at a distant galazy. You can remove either axis and either the center of the wheel or the bottom of the vertical connecting rod becomes the axis of the orbit of the middle connecting rod.
Good Job Ball4! You have both rotation on the moon’s central axis and translation around the earth!
Just one small problem, this doesn’t look like the moon. It is showing all sides to the earth.(no matter which axis you choose for earth)
It instead looks like the Hubble space craft as you so observantly pointed out. Excellent!
To make it look like the moon you have to completely remove the redundant axis and weld the connecting rod to other/moon’s axis.
That will stop the rotation on the rods/moon’s axis.
The motion left over will be of the connecting rod rotating around the earth’s axis and continuing to show only one of its sides to the other axis. That is what the moon is doing.
“Just one small problem, this doesnt look like the moon. It is showing all sides to the earth.(no matter which axis you choose for earth)”
“This” could only refer to the horizontal connecting rod because the vertical one doesnt complete a rev. about either axis. So, bill is referring to curvilinear translation note pointing at the horizontal connecting rod.
Which of course doesn’t look like the moon, just like Fig. 2a, slide 6 vehicle dont look like the moon since they present all faces to the center of their orbit like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy.
The moon has added the motion of rotation once on its own axis per rev. (lap) to its curvilinear translation on orbit, like Fig. 2b, the reality video ball on string, and chalk circle.
#2
Revolution is not your slide 6 curvilinear translation, Ball4. Revolution is a rotation about an external axis.
Revolution is on slide 16 as you have been told many times. Curvilinear translation is slide 6.
Ball4 says:
July 5, 2020 at 1:13 PM
”Revolution is on slide 16 as you have been told many times. Curvilinear translation is slide 6.”
So now you are going to resort to lying?
Ball4 says:
July 2, 2020 at 2:06 PM
”See slide 16. Needfully said since DREMT cant count axes or rotation. ”The connecting rod undergoes curvilinear translation, since it will remain horizontal as it moves along a circular path.””
…and the Spinners define revolution without axial rotation as per slide 6, curvilinear translation. Motion like the Hubble Telescope looking at a distant galaxy. That is the only way you can claim the moon is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
Thanks for proving my point, you’ve been told. Now try to reach an accurate comprehension of the various slides. I predict this will not happen in your lifetime of commenting. I’m sure you can prove my point on that too.
Not only do I have an accurate comprehension of the various slides but I also fully understand the Spinner position. That is how I know that the Spinners define revolution without axial rotation as per slide 6, curvilinear translation. Motion like the Hubble Telescope looking at a distant galaxy. That is the only way they can claim the moon is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
Not the only way, reality videos show the ball on a string in motion like observed for the moon, ISS, chalk circle, Fig. 2b rectangle.
No, it is the only way…and you even describe it that way yourself, in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-495821
“…curvilinear translation and rotation combined”.
Strawman alert, the words “only way” are not found in that comment. Nor any comment I’ve made here unless quoting others using the term.
I didn’t mean you describe it as the only way.
I meant, in that comment you describe the motion of the moon as a curvilinear translation plus a rotation. Meaning that you obviously define revolution as curvilinear translation.
Sure, when the horizontal connecting rod completes 2 pi radians = 1 revolution (orbit) slide 18 in curvilinear rotation on its external axis as noted slide 16. Like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy while orbiting earth.
Ball4 says:
”Sure, when the horizontal connecting rod completes 2 pi radians = 1 revolution (orbit) slide 18 in curvilinear rotation on its external axis as noted slide 16. Like Hubble staring at a distant galaxy while orbiting earth.”
Correct and that rotation on its axes is necessary for a curvilinear rotation to revolve in a circle.
Stop that rotation on its internal axis and you have what the moon is.
Like on the mgr with the globes with frictionless bearing the globes would curvilinearly translate around the mgr while rotating on its internal axis in a synchronous fashion.
When friction stops those bearings from rotating at all the globes will be like the chalked circle and retain one face pointed at the center of the mgr and if gravity were providing that force the globes would be elongated pointing at the COG upon which it is rotating like spokes on a wheel.
The only point you guys had was at the start spinners were claiming that gravity has no rotational influence on a sphere but thats simply not the case it does. It elongates the moon and makes the moon revolve around the earth similar to spokes on a wheel.
“that rotation on its axes is necessary for a curvilinear rotation to revolve in a circle.”
bill, slide 16 doesn’t say curvilinear rotation! Slide 16 horizontal rod points at curvilinear translation.
That rod rotation, as I wrote, is about its external axis as is necessary for 1 revolution = 2 pi radians each orbit like Hubble, no rotation on an internal axis. You and DREMT are not specific about which axis, this suits your disinformation purpose.
Ball4 says:
“that rotation on its axes is necessary for a curvilinear rotation to revolve in a circle.”
bill, slide 16 doesn’t say curvilinear rotation! Slide 16 horizontal rod points at curvilinear translation.
That rod rotation, as I wrote, is about its external axis as is necessary for 1 revolution = 2 pi radians each orbit like Hubble, no rotation on an internal axis. You and DREMT are not specific about which axis, this suits your disinformation purpose.
=================================
All you have to do is look Ball4. The horizontal rod in curvilinear translation is supported by 4 axes all of which are rotating as the horizontal rod goes around the wheel.
If you cut off the right hand end of the rod you rid yourself of two axes. Thus assuming zero force to cause the rod to change its orientation the rod will curvilinearly translate around the wheel still with the two remaining axes both rotating, the axis at the middle of the wheel and the axis on the end of the rod.
But thats not what is going to happen because there is a centrifugal force that will rotate the rod as an extension of the radius line between the two axes on the wheel. At that point the axis in the rod stops rotating and the rod travels around the axis in the center of the wheel like a spoke on an axle.
Here’s a good video involving the ball on a string where the math is worked out. The teacher claims the ball on the string is curvilinear translation. He explains how to calculate the various accelerations and velocities along with how to calculate the radial component. This math could be easily applied to the Moon-Earth relationship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdtzuJG97AY
dremt…I have not read your Tesla articles closely, just skimming them. In fact, the one I read mostly was the 2nd article about kinetic energy. I had no idea that Tesla used the coin example (he used washers), I arrived at that on my own from experience in my engineering classes.
At the beginning of article II, there is this statement from the editor:
“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”.
This is another way of looking at the problem which has escaped me. You cannot have orbital motion without energy. The only possible motion with the Moon presenting the same face to the Earth has to be translational energy and as it is in a curved orbit, it has to be curvilinear translational energy.
The rotational energy claimed by the spinners is purely delusional as Tesla claimed.
From article I:
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one”.
re washers….”He [the observer] will now readily see that the supposed axial rotation is only apparent, the impression being produced by successive changes of position in space”.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
There is also this article, which was his second on the moon:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
Interesting link, thanks.
The best way to get the wrong answer is to keep ignoring data.
The data still shows that there are indeed two axes involved with the Moons motion, one it revolves around and one it rotates around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-Moon.svg
Keep ignoring the data
Keep getting the wrong answer.
If there were two axes, there would have to be two rotations. If there were two rotations, one about an external axis, and one passing through the cm of the moon, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. I see the diagram, I do not doubt the moon is aligned that way wrt to its orbital plane whilst it orbits, I just know that there cannot be two axes. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMPTY,
The diagram shows two axes.
So how can you know there are not two axes, oh, you just know that.
Because for some reason, it does not match your world view.
How do you explain libration?
The diagram shows two axes because it is commonly believed that the moon rotates on its own axis. Unfortunately, that is wrong…and it has nothing to do with my “world view”. I have explained why enough times by now.
As for libration…use the search feature. All been discussed a dozen times already. You can read what Tesla had to say about it in the moon’s rotation follow up article, too.
You have never adequately explained the libration issue, so try again.
I have been involved with a lot of these libration discussions and your side has never been able to explain the issues.
4 kinds of libration, try explaining them again.
Your explanations so far have been nothing but all wrong.
And since Tesla was unaware of the second axis, he didn’t address it adequately either.
What is on the diagram is not what is commonly believed, it is what has been measured by astronomers, not shit written in a science fiction magazine by a pigeon feeder.
If DREMT really understood slide 16, and could count 1 correctly, DREMT would correctly write 12:48pm:
If there were two rotations, one about an external axis, and one passing through the cm of the moon, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth unless the rotation on moon’s internal axis is once per rev. I see the diagram, I do not doubt the moon is aligned that way wrt to its orbital plane whilst it orbits, I just know that there cannot be two axes unless moon rotates on its own axis once per rev.
DREMPTY
I found one of your epic comments on libration
“Nobody said the moon couldnt have a bit of up/down wobble (libration of latitude) and side/side wobble (libration of longitude) whilst it orbits. After all, the moon isnt held in place by a rigid rod. Its just gravity doing its thing, as best it can, but its not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.”
Up and down and side to side wobble doesn’t explain libration.
I am marking an F on your homework.
“And since Tesla was unaware of the second axis, he didn’t address it adequately either.”
Of course he was aware of it. He was well aware that people thought the moon rotates on an axis passing through the moon’s center of mass, because that is precisely what he was arguing against. Hence he made comments such as:
“He [the observer] will now readily see that the supposed axial rotation is only apparent, the impression being produced by successive changes of position in space”
You do come out with some funny stuff, blob.
No he wasn’t aware of the actual amount of the axial tilt or he would have noted it, he did not.
He did say something about the only true axis though.
He thought there was only one axis, he was a deluded pigeon feeder.
Do you feed pigeons?
I don’t, I think they are skyscraper rats.
He discussed what people raised with him, in their letters, after the original article was published. If nobody mentioned the “axial tilt”, he wouldn’t have discussed it, now would he? Doesn’t mean he wasn’t well aware of it. I’m sure he would have been.
Here is Tesla on the librations of longitude:
“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 I hold that the mere change of orbital velocity, as will be evident from what has been stated before could not produce these phenomena, for no matter how fast or slow the gyration, the position of the body relative to the center of attraction remains the same.
The real cause of these axial displacements is the changing distance of the moon from the earth owing to which the tangential components of velocity of its parts are varied. In apogee, when the planet recedes, the radial component of velocity decreases while the tangential increases but, as the decrement of the former is the same for all parts, this is more pronounced in the regions facing the earth than in those turned away from it, the consequence being an axial displacement exposing more of the eastern side. In perigee, on the contrary, the radial component increases and the effect is just the opposite with the result that more of the western side is seen.”
bobdroege says:
DREMPTY
I found one of your epic comments on libration
Nobody said the moon couldnt have a bit of up/down wobble (libration of latitude) and side/side wobble (libration of longitude) whilst it orbits. After all, the moon isnt held in place by a rigid rod. Its just gravity doing its thing, as best it can, but its not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.
Up and down and side to side wobble doesnt explain libration.
I am marking an F on your homework.
=========================================
Librations are common to everything. Just all most all other examples are the systems are too small to notice. Hang a planet out there on a connecting rod and no matter how hard you work at designing the rod you are going to see librations.
You might not get much stretch in a connecting rod in a Chevrolet powerplant but building structures to overcome gravity is serious business even on a small scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)#Collapse
DREMPTY,
Librations of longitude are not the issue, they deal with the fact that the Moons orbit is an ellipse.
Try pulling a discussion of the librations of latitude out of your pigeon feeders works.
There are two kinds, one of them deals with the fact that the orbit of the Moon is tilted with respect to elliptic plane.
The other one is the crux of the biscuit, it deals with the axial tilt of the Moons rotation.
There is a fourth kind due to parallax, observe the Moon just as it rises and then when it sets.
And your pigeon feeder got something backwards, did you notice?
“In apogee, when the planet recedes, the radial component of velocity decreases while the tangential increases but, as the decrement of the former is the same for all parts, this is more pronounced in the regions facing the earth than in those turned away from it, the consequence being an axial displacement exposing more of the eastern side”
The tangential velocity of the Moon is lowest at apogee.
Not your best expert witness.
Bill,
You can’t be serious.
“Librations are common to everything. Just all most all other examples are the systems are too small to notice. Hang a planet out there on a connecting rod and no matter how hard you work at designing the rod you are going to see librations.
You might not get much stretch in a connecting rod in a Chevrolet powerplant but building structures to overcome gravity is serious business even on a small scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)#Collapse”
Now I know you are blowing smoke up my rear.
“Try pulling a discussion of the librations of latitude out of your pigeon feeders works.”
As I said, clearly nobody brought it up. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t aware of them…and if librations of latitude and “axial tilt” are the issue, just do a search on the thread. That has been discussed many times already. You seem to be clutching at straws somewhat, blob.
Drempty,
And here is what you said about libration
“Nobody said the moon couldnt have a bit of up/down wobble (libration of latitude) and side/side wobble (libration of longitude) whilst it orbits. After all, the moon isnt held in place by a rigid rod. Its just gravity doing its thing, as best it can, but its not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.”
Bit of up/down wobble?
And
“its not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.”
You are familiar with Newton’s laws?
The Moon will remain perfectly fixed unless a force acts on it, you need to provide a force to produce your bits of up/down wobble.
“Just gravity doing its thing”
No, that don’t cut it.
Now, now, blob, you are getting close to lying by omission here. A lot more has been said about the librations of latitude and about lunar obliquity both by myself and others than what you are quoting. Have a search. Start being honest.
So what are you going to do DREMPTY?
Admit that those statements were yours and that you were wrong?
If you will admit that, then I will search the 4000 plus thread for more discussions of libration.
But won’t you post a link to any of your previous statements that you believe explain libration?
Maybe you did provide an acceptable explanation, but I doubt it because the only was to explain it is to admit that the Moon rotates.
Or will you take another crack at explaining libration?
Anyway, I was no where close to lying, you challenged me to search the thread for discussion by you on libration, I found one, and it was wrong.
I don’t need to do anything, blob. You don’t seem to have a point except your belief that the libration of latitude proves something about axial rotation, for some unexplained reason.
Whereas I am happy that this has all been discussed several times already, and anybody that is curious who is reading along can just use ctrl-F and search for “obliquity” or “axial tilt” if they wish.
Yep libration is just a distraction from the fact the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
The vast amount of libration is simply created by the elliptical orbit and doesn’t amount to a rotation of the moon at all.
The estimated physical libration by longitude of the moon is like 190 billionths of one revolution that is described as a wobble that one cannot see with a telescope.
So it could be thought that the moon rotates on its axis to and fro for 190th billionths of a revolution, but it doesn’t even likely do that because its most likely stretch of the moon surface that creates the libration.
the only thing going on here is these spinner folks are married to astronomical dogma to a degree they are blind to the obvious.
It starts out with an idea of zero lunar rotation as viewed from space.
But as Ball4 describes at 6:21 am today the diagram he has been hawking in slide 16 of a connecting rod traveling in curvilinear translation plus rotation is actually a combination of this lunar zero observed rotation that is actually made up of curvilinear translation and a rotation on the moons axis. Ball4 even recognizes this as the Hubble Telescope viewing a distant galaxy.
He is right! But thats not our moon. To get our moon you simply stop the rotation on the axis and are left with an object rotating around the earth’s COG without even curvilinear translation just a rotation of the earth’s COG.
Thats exactly what DREMT has been saying for I think more than 2 months. Thank you Ball4 for demonstrating it clearly.
bill,
you produced another brain fart, the longitudinal libration amplitude is seven degrees. It was discovered by Johannes Hevelius in 1648.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration
Let me spell it out.
Orbital speed varies.
Rotational speed does not.
They are not the same.
Svante, you need to educate yourself on the difference between ‘geometrical’ librations and ‘physical’ librations.
This should help: https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smoon4.htm
A geometrical libration is the visual effect of the moon rotating around an elliptical center and has nothing to do with a moon rotating on its own axis but instead has everything to do with the moon’s elliptical orbit around the earth’s COG. Geometrical libration is non-physical regarding lunar rotation but makes up virtually all the longitude libration.
A physical libration is either an actual rotation on the moons central axis or its simply a variation in the movement of the moon’s surface tidal bulge.
Physical libration is so small it you need 8 decimal places of a single rotation to quantify the surface effect on the face of the moon. How that movement might translate to the moon’s central axis, if it does, is unknown.
After noting that distinction return to the post you are referring to and note I was addressing ‘The estimated physical libration by longitude’. So you need to unspell what you spelled out because you spelled out something totally irrelevant to what I was addressing.
OK, we agree that physical libration is negligible.
Longitudinal libration has everything to do with the Moon rotating on its own axis. Your link says:
“Yep libration is just a distraction from the fact the moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Yes indeed, bill. They do like their distractions. Until they can agree that if the moon were rotating about an external axis (revolving) plusrotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth, anything else is just a distraction.
It really is that simple.
Libration has nothing to do with which axis the moon might be rotating on but has everything to do with the shape and tilt of the moon’s orbit instead. Svante you are just grasping at straws.
DREMPTY,
You have been show to be wrong and you won’t admit it.
Good to know.
…anything else is just a distraction.
It really is that simple.
DREMPTY,
What about this?
“Nobody said the moon couldnt have a bit of up/down wobble (libration of latitude) and side/side wobble (libration of longitude) whilst it orbits. After all, the moon isnt held in place by a rigid rod. Its just gravity doing its thing, as best it can, but its not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.”
Just a few comments further on I gave a far better explanation of why libration of latitude/lunar obliquity does not prove axial rotation. Funny how you did not mention that. Here is the link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-471958
Literally just a few comments further down from the one you keep quoting, without linking to…
Paging Eben,
Did you order a word salad?
That’s what DREMPTY is giving me
“You are trying to describe the phenomenon of lunar obliquity. There is no orbital axis, but if you were to draw a line through the moon perpendicular to its orbital plane then that line deviates by the line going through the moon’s north and south “poles” by six degrees or so. That is the lunar obliquity. This has been determined by studying the libration of latitude from Earth, and from knowledge of the deviation of the moons orbital plane from the ecliptic.
You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south “pole” for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did. Then, with knowledge of how the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic plus the observations of the moon’s libration of latitude, if present, you could determine the lunar obliquity…and this is all in a moon” that you would consider not to be rotating on its own axis. Therefore axial rotation is not proven by lunar obliquity.”
DREMPTY,
If the Moon wasn’t rotating, you would see all sides from Earth. There wouldn’t be poles if the Moon wasn’t rotating.
And more wobble back and forth bull, have you been drinking again?
So another epic fail from you, actually worse than the last one as this one is just a word salad.
Sorry that you are unable to understand clearly-written English, blob. I will not lose any sleep over your reading comprehension failure.
DREMPTY,
I am still waiting for an explanation of libration using the Moon doesn’t rotate model.
The Moon rotates model explains it very well.
You have been given an explanation as to why libration of latitude/lunar obliquity does not prove axial rotation. It’s up to you to try to understand it. As far as I’m concerned it is clear enough. So I’m done on that subject.
DREMTPY,
Your evasive tactics are noted.
The question was for you to explain libration using the non rotating Moon model, not whether the libration proves that the Moon rotates or not.
Care to address the question asked of you?
Actually libration does prove the Moon rotates along two lines of evidence.
One that since the Moon rotates at a constant rate but revolves at differing rates, we can the Moon turn so we can see slices of it that would not be otherwise visible if the Moon wasn’t rotating.
The second is that as the axis of the Moon is tilted with respect to the orbit of the Moon, some of it rotates into view as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
The Moon has to rotate in order for those parts of the Moon to be visible from Earth.
blob, only a few comments ago you said:
“Librations of longitude are not the issue, they deal with the fact that the Moons orbit is an ellipse”
Now you are trying to bring them back up again!
As for the librations of latitude, I have already explained why they don’t prove axial rotation. Get over it.
Right! Librations are simply manifestations of two variables that the COG for earth had no part in setting, namely the speed and pathway that the moon entered an orbit around the earth resulting in a tilted and elliptical orbit. Everything else is controlled from the COG of earth with some relatively minor perturbations from other nearby objects in space like the sun and other major planets.
The discussion here is incredibly boring and stubborn.
*
It is really a pity that the Apollo teams didn’t have any opportunity to install a Foucault pendulum during their stays on the Moon.
Such an experiment would of course have given one more proof of Moon’s rotation.
*
The dumbest pseudo-argument to this has been written on this thread by the Pseudomod:
” The Foucault pendulum, too, would only indicate rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter… not about the moon’s own axis. ”
Pseudomod is so fixated on denying evidence that he doesn’t even understand that if he was right, the same would hold for a Foucault pendulum working on Earth.
According to Pseudomod, the pendulum on Earth “would only indicate rotation about the Sun-Earth barycenter… not about the Earth’s own axis”.
But why does a Foucault pendulum on Earth show a rotation within 24 hours, Pseudomod, an not within 365 days?
(The Sun-Earth barycenter is near the Sun’s center: no more than 449 km!)
J.-P. D.
“According to Pseudomod, the pendulum on Earth “would only indicate rotation about the Sun-Earth barycenter… not about the Earth’s own axis”.“
No, Bindidon, that is a straw man. It would indicate rotation about the Earth’s own axis because the Earth is rotating on its own axis. On the moon, it would only indicate the rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter, because the moon is not rotating on its own axis. As Tesla put it:
“Even the well-known experiment with the Foucault pendulum, altho exhibiting similar phenomena as on our globe, would merely demonstrate a motion of the satellite about some axis.”
Correct! The frame of reference of the Foucault pendulum is space and however the moon rotates its going to have the exact same characteristics. Bindidon would have wasted a lot of NASA’s money.
What is getting silly are the spinner arguments with Bindidon making up DREMT quotations for himself as strawmen to shout down.
Bindidon says:
The discussion here is incredibly boring and stubborn.
*
It is really a pity that the Apollo teams didnt have any opportunity to install a Foucault pendulum during their stays on the Moon.
=============================
Bindidon rejoins without learning anything at all since he last departed.
dremt…in a recent post you thought the notion of curvilinear translation to explain the turning of the Moon in its orbit is not helpful. However, it is not only helpful it is the only explanation for why a N,S,E,W axis through the Moon appears to turn through each direction of the compass during one lunar orbit.
I have considered what Tesla said about the Moon’s orbit being akin to a spoked wheel, hence claiming it is rotating around the Earth, or a barycentre. He also refers to the same action as a revolution.
“I have stated in my article that the moon rotates about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, which is not strictly true, but it does not vitiate the conclusions I have drawn. It is well known, of course, that the two bodies revolve around a common center of gravity, which is at a distance of a little over 2,899 miles from the earth’s center”.
I think this explanation misses the real action of the Earth-Moon system. The hub of a spoked wheel definitely rotates around an axis because it meets the definition of rotation which requires a mass to be attached to an axle by a rigid body. That is not the case with the Earth-Moon system.
The gravitational field is not attached to the Moon and it does not turn with the Moon. There is no rotation possible by the Moon about the Earth for that reason. That’s why I keep harping about curvilinear translation, which is the only physical explanation for the apparent rotation of the Moon. In the intro to one of the Tesla articles, the editor specifically labels the kinetic energy as a translation, not a rotation. I did not read whether Tesla made that claim himself.
We must keep in mind that the Moon’s momentum is linear. The Moon wants to perform rectilinear translation and if it was passing the Earth, unaffected by gravity, it would fly past in a straight line with the same near side facing the Earth without rotation, that is, with all parts of the Moon moving in parallel lines at the same velocity.
Gravity is a field, not a singular inline force like what might be applied by a rope or a spoke. It is represented as a vector but only as an instantaneous force vector. The vector does not rotate like the spokes on a wheel, rather it’s more like a series of vectors lined up one behind the other, the Moon being passed one to the other. They are stationary therefore cannot be compared to a rotating spoke on a wheel, or a ball/string, as Tesla agreed.
The point I am trying to make is that the Moon cannot be regarded as a rigid body rotating about the Earth because it is a rigid body moving with linear momentum that is being affected by a gravitational field. The field is not causing the Moon to rotate about the Earth, rather the motion is due to the Moon’s local linear momentum. As such, the Moon is independent of the Earth, unlike a spoked wheel hub or a ball on a string.
Imagine the Moon passing through our solar system in a straight line so it is close to the Earth and not as much under the influence of solar gravity. The moment it encounters the Earth’s gravitational field it feels an attraction and starts to bend away from the straight line toward the Earth.
How it will behave depends on several factors. If it is going too fast for the gravitation force to capture it, it will continue past the Earth and sweep off on a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory, hopefully not toward the Sun. If it’s going too slow, Earth’s gravity will draw it into a spiraling path and it will crash into the Earth. It needs to be going at a fairly precise velocity for the altitude in order to enter an Earth orbit, where there is a balance between its momentum and gravitational force. That fact raises questions about the origin of the Moon.
It’s plain to see that we are talking about a conversion from rectilinear translation to curvilinear translation due to the effect of gravity on a body moving with only rectilinear translation. Some people are calling it curvilinear motion and I can live with that depending on what is meant by translation, whether that means translation of axes or the changing of position of a rigid body.
The apparent rotation of a N,S,E,W axis imposed on the Moon is an illusion as claimed by Tesla. It is actually a change of position wherein all points along a radial line from the Earth through the Moon remain parallel to each other.
The parallelism is the key. You cannot have local rotation if all points on a rigid body are moving parallel to each other. Conversely, the parallel motion of all points on the Moon, at the same angular velocity, is the definition of curvilinear translation. What you see in text books is the application of a translation of axes only, ignoring the other definition of translation of a change in position.
In the video I posted recently, the teacher depicts a particle performing curvilinear motion and he explains each instantaneous position of the particle with a tangential line perpendicular to a radial line which can be calculated from the properties of the path of the particle.
A circle or an ellipse is a special form of a curve, so if you can describe curvilinear translation of a particle on one curve you can definitely apply the description to a circle or an ellipse. The criterion is continuity, as long as a the curve is continuous, the same theory can be applied.
The teacher said nothing about a translation of axes or the forces affecting the particle. If you replace the particle with a rigid body connected to an axle with a rigid member, you have curvilinear motion and translation by definition.
As I pointed out to Norman, you cannot go by a textbook per se. Those presented thus far have presented only examples of a translation of axes via curvilinear translation. The definition presented, however, does not restrict the motion to translating axes as depicted in the examples. The definition states clearly that the criterion are that the particles, or lines, in the mass move in parallel lines at the same velocity.
That describes the action of all particles of the Moon through its entire orbit. There is one other stipulation in some definitions, that the parallelism be related to the starting parallelism. With a straight line, the beginning is the beginning, but where is the beginning on a circle or curve, and by what standard is parallelism applied?
Parallel on a straight line like the x-axis is obvious but that is not what is meant by parallel on a curve or a circle. Parallel on both of the latter means parallel to a tangent line at a point on the curve where the tangent line is perpendicular to a radial line describing the curve. Therefore the definitions for rectilinear and curvilinear translation cannot be applied specifically to both since the parameters for both are different.
“I think this explanation misses the real action of the Earth-Moon system. The hub of a spoked wheel definitely rotates around an axis because it meets the definition of rotation which requires a mass to be attached to an axle by a rigid body. That is not the case with the Earth-Moon system.”
There is actually no requirement that the mass be physically attached. All the definitions of rotation or revolution that have been put forward by the Non-Spinners so far show that the axis of rotation need not go through the body. So an object can be rotating about an external axis with no physical connection to that axis. All that is required is that the particles of the body be moving in concentric circles about the axis. As is the case with the moon. This is why I personally go with the rotation argument.
dremt…”There is actually no requirement that the mass be physically attached”.
Remember, we’re on the same side in this debate and right now we are clarifying details. However, I don’t see how a mass can rotate around an axis without being attached. The main examples we have used thus far, like the ball on the string, the MGR, the spoked wheel, are all attached. The other one we used, the racehorse on the track is not attached but I thought we agreed it was not rotating either about its COG or the centre of the track.
You can claim an ice-skater is rotating about her COG as she spins on a spot but hopefully all her parts are attached. ☺
☺️
Well, here is one example, from Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
dremt…”Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line”.
Again, we’re on the same side and I regard this as a discussion, not me trying to prove you wrong or to be right. In other words, I am seeking the truth of the matter, not an ego trip. If we end the discussion by agreeing to disagree that’s cool with me.
Your statement above applies to a rigid body, according to the wiki article. They have not demonstrated how a rigid body can rotate about an axis that is outside the body other than by attaching it to the axis with a rigid member or some other kind of connector.
Gravity does not meet that requirement for the Moon, it’s not a connector. It’s a field through which the Moon moves due to its own linear momentum. The only purpose served by gravity is to deviate the linear momentum of the Moon, that is a property of the Moon, not the system, Gravity has little or no effect on the momentum of the Moon only on its direction.
On the other hand, if you rotate a ball on a string, the string serves to change the momentum of the ball and to give it direction. That’s a rotating system. It would be the same for horses on a MGR or the rim of a spoked wheel but not for a horse running on a track. The horse, like the Moon, is supplying its own momentum therefore it is translating on the track, not rotating about the centre of the track.
You can argue somewhat that as Earth’s gravity changes slightly in the more eccentric part of the Moon’s elliptical orbit that the momentum changes slightly. The Moon actually slows slightly with reduced gravity and speeds up slightly with increased gravity. However, gravity does not play a part in causing the Moon to move in its orbit, it affects only the direction of the momentum.
This system is unique in physics, as is the solar system and binary star systems.
Here is another source saying the same thing as my previous source:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“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.”
dremt…”Here is another source saying the same thing as my previous source:”
I agreed to that in my previous post. With an external axis there has to be a mechanical connector between the external axis and rotating mass. They also claim that is called revolving. Semantics aside, I cannot conceive of an example of such rotation/revolution without a mechanical connection.
If you consider a horse running an oval track, that is neither rotation nor revolution. It is translation since the horse performs both rectilinear and curvilinear translation. Furthermore, all parts of the horse move in parallel lines at all time and at the same angular velocity. Since the horse is a rigid body, the velocity of individual particles don’t count, it is the angular velocity of a radial line through the horse from a focal point of the elliptical track.
Gordon, the spinners are so confused they keep changing frames of reference.
You should note at 6:21 am today Ball4 provided an explanation of curvilinear translation combined with rotation that he has been going on about for innumerable posts.
However, the curvilinear translation only exists in their ‘no rotation of the moon’ frame of reference. It is enabled by the curvilinear translation in combination with a rotation of the moon on its own axis.
In order to conform this ‘no rotation of the moon on its own axis’ falsehood’ to cause the moon to keep its face towards earth instead of pointing in one direction to space, they must end the curvilinear translation by welding up the moon’s axis so it no longer rotates on its own axis. Then the moon will travel around the earth exposing only one side to the earth like a chalked circle on an mgr platform and will appear to be spinning from space.
Might as well do one more source, which also seems to state no connector to the axis is required:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object can always be rotated about an infinite number of imaginary lines called rotation axis (/ˈksiːz/ AK-seez). If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity. The axis is called a pole.”
Bill…”the spinners are so confused they keep changing frames of reference”.
I tried to point out to them that the Moon does not rotate about its axis in any frame of reference. The spinners don’t get it that what they see as rotation is an illusion, as was pointed out by Tesla as well. They see an imposed N,S,E,W axis imposed on the Moon as rotating through 360 degrees when in actuality it is changing positions through 360 degrees due to its orbital constraint.
dremt…”Might as well do one more source, which also seems to state no connector to the axis is required:”
I’m in agreement with you for the most part. I simply think orbital motion about a central body is a special kind of motion. If you consider the rear wheel of a car, the driven wheel is driven by a splined shaft (axle) from the differential. The rim rotates about the axle because it is driven through a physical connection to the axle.
The Moon is not driven by any such action, it has an existing linear momentum and Earth’s gravity serves only to change its position. That change of position is translation, not rotation.
If you consider a body rotating about an axis where the body is rigid and connected via a rigid member or connector like a string or rope, there is a definite relationship between the connector and the rotating mass. Such a rotating mass is a classical definition of rotation about an external axis.
When the Moon orbits the Earth, there is no connector moving with the Moon. There is only a gravitational force which acts as an accelerating field. Furthermore, the Moon is free to rotate on its axis provided it has angular momentum about its axis or a tangential force to create such momentum. That’s not usually the case with rotations like the ball on a string, spoked wheel, MGR, etc.
In fact, the orbital process is quite different and unique. If you consider the Moon moving past the Earth with its current momentum, which it possesses independent of the Earth, and it passes at the same altitude of its current orbit, it is performing rectilinear translation till the point where it is affected by Earth’s gravitational field.
It is rectilinear translation because all parts of the Moon are moving in parallel paths at the same velocity. When the Moon encounters Earth’s gravitational field, it’s rectilinear translation becomes curved. The moment that occurs we have to change the definition of parallel from a straight line parallelism to a curved parallelism (concentricity) and the definition of velocity from linear velocity to angular velocity.
Parallelism on any continuous curve is based on the tangent to the curve at any point at any instant. The following instant, the tangent line’s slope will change. At any point, at any instant, the tangent to the curve is a line perpendicular to the radial line defining the curve. The youtube video I posted recently explains that relationship really well.
Therefore, the moment Earth’s gravity starts accelerating the Moon toward the Earth, we change to polar coordinates with tangent lines. Hence forth, parallelism or concentricity is defined by the tangent to the curve at any point, at any instant. BTW, I am saying at any point, at any instant because the tangent line to any continuous curve will change from point to point and instant to instant. Otherwise it is no longer continuous.
I think this is crucial to the argument. The Moon is changing position constantly, point to point, and instant to instant and it’s not doing it because it is driven by a rotating member attached to it. It’s doing it because it has it’s own linear momentum and it is encountering a field that diverts it continuously, point by point and instant by instant.
I don’t think the ball on a string model is too far off for orbital motion. All you really need to add is a “winding in” mechanism to winch the ball inwards, to represent the force of gravity, which can be offset by the centrifugal force from the circular motion. So when you get the ball swinging around with the right amount of speed, the system is in balance. Any slower, the ball winds inwards, any faster the ball winds outwards from the center.
dremt…”I don’t think the ball on a string model is too far off for orbital motion”.
I agree, it serves as a good model for several reasons. For one, as you have pointed out many times, if the ball was rotating about its axis/COG, it would wind itself up in the string.
Another point is that the string serves as a radial arm that can be extended through the ball. It’s clear that all points on the string are moving in concentric paths at the same angular velocity and that has to apply to the ball as well, otherwise it wraps itself up in the string.
If all points on the ball are moving in parallel paths, the ball itself is translating along a curved path while it is also rotating about an external axis.
Thirdly, through this action the ball keeps the same face pointing to the axis while the ball is not rotating about a local axis, just like the Moon.
…if the ball was rotating about its axis/COG more or less than once, it would wind itself up in the string.
Ball4 says:
if the ball was rotating about its axis/COG more or less than once, it would wind itself up in the string.
==============================
Thats actually true when you state that the axis is the COG of the earth. As the string and ball rotate around that axis any additional rotation, no matter which axis, will cause the ball to start winding the string around it.
So you are right it rotates around an axis no more or less than once. You are just wrong about where the axis is because that would cause the ball to wind up the string as long as the ball is orbiting and external axis.
Ok bill, I’ll be more specific because a few here (including bill) need the specifics: if the ball was rotating about its internal axis/COG more or less than once per rev. of the external axis, then it would wind itself up in the string.
The ball on a string is just rotating about an external axis, not rotating on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, the ball would wrap around the string.
Again, specifics are needed for DREMT: the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, not rotating more or less than once per rev. on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis more or less than once, the ball would wrap around the string.
#2
The ball on a string is just rotating about an external axis, not rotating on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, the ball would wrap around the string.
dremt…something occurred to me as I posted above. If you compare the action of a stationary gravitational field to a moving magnetic field, it might make my point clear.
In a 3-phase electric motor, you have a rotor mounted inside a stator. The stator is a series of copper winding space so as to form electromagnets around the rotor.
The basis of a 3-phase motor is a 3-phase power supply. With ordinary house current, at 60 Hz, the voltage/current alternates at 60 times per second. That means, in one cycle, a voltage rises from 0 volts to peak positive then back to 0 volts whence the polarity of the voltage reverse through the same cycle.
If you lay that out over 360 degrees, it means the voltage is 0 volts at 0 degrees, peak positive voltage at 90 degrees, 0 volts at 180 degrees, peak negative at 270 degrees, and back to 0 volts at 360 degrees. The curve formed by that action is called a sinusoid or a sine wave.
If you have an alternating voltage starting at 0 degrees and another starting 120 degrees later, you say the second voltage is 120 degrees out of phase with the first. If you have a third voltage starting 120 degrees later than the second, it is 120 degrees out of phase with the 2nd and 240 out of phase with the 1st.
You have three voltages with three distinct phases, hence a 3-phase system. It’s the same thing as having three independent alternating current sources with all three starting from 0 volts at different times.
That’s a 3-phase system. If you apply each one of those phase voltages to the aforementioned stator windings, which are wound 120 degrees apart, you have a rotating magnetic field. As each voltage rises and falls in each winding it produces the equivalent of a magnetic field that rotates around the rotor.
The rotor is designed so that voltages induced in it by the varying stator windings produces a magnetic field that interacts with the moving stator field, so the rotor starts to turn. It will eventually align itself with the rotating electric field speed under no load conditions.
As you can see, there is a definite cause and effect wrt to rotation in this example. The moving field causes the rotor to turn. That is not the case with the Moon and the Earth. The Moon went into orbit at some time with its own linear momentum and it maintains the momentum only because there is little or no resistance at the altitude of the Moon.
There is no causal relationship re rotation whatsoever between the Moon and the Earth. The Earth’s gravitational field is not causing the Moon to rotate around the Earth. It is only causing an existing linear momentum in the Moon to divert its linear momentum into an elliptical orbit (path).
That explains why the Moon appears to rotate in it orbit, the orbit being a continuously diverted linear path. If you examine it closely, at an instantaneous level, it’s apparent the Moon is always moving in a straight line at any instant.
In the Tesla articles, that action is referred to as a change in position, not rotation about an axis. That’s also a definition in physics for translation.
Interesting. According to this Thoughtco article the moon does not rotate on its own axis:
https://www.thoughtco.com/revolution-geography-definition-1434848
Well, Pseudomod: If i have to choose between
– the private meaning of a geographer
and
– the report of a successful Chinese Moon mission:
whom, do you think, would I trust more?
Here is a book:
Low Energy Flight: Orbital Dynamics and Mission Trajectory Design
By Jianping Yuan, Yu Cheng, Jinglang Feng, Chong Sun
*
I know, Pseudomod: once again, you won’t understand, and therefore you will intentionally misinterpret what the Chinese scientists wrote about their real knowledge and experience.
Because you have none either, and want to keep contrarian.
*
1. Look on page 42
https://tinyurl.com/yd34hqp8
for ‘ … and polar orbits around the Moon (taking into account the orientation of the rotation axis of the Moon)… ‘
2. Look on page 45
https://tinyurl.com/ycsn9hx7
for
– (a) ‘ … the origin is located at the centre of the Moon, the z’-axis is aligned with the mean Moon’s rotation axis (orthogonal to the Moon’s equator) … ‘
and
– (b) ‘ … Due to the long precession time of the Moon’s rotation axis … ‘
*
Of course, you will continue to pretend that they mean Moon’s rotation about the Earth-Moon barycenter, even though
– a rotation axis around the Moon’s barycenter never could have an inclination of 6.7 degrees wrt the Moon’s orbit;
– the precession time of a celestial body’s axial tilt makes only sense for the rotation about the body’s own center of mass.
No problem for me. Keep contrarian!
J.-P. D.
You still cannot correctly represent the Non-Spinner position. No problem for me. Keep bashing those straw men!
Rosenberg: “But the Earth is also spinning on what is called an axis, this rotation is what gives us our night and day cycle. If the Earth didn’t spin then only one side of it would face the sun during its revolution. This would make the other side of the Earth very cold as we need the sun for light and heat. This ability to spin on an axis is called rotation.”
Then Rosenberg: “The moon does not rotate because it is gravitationally locked with the Earth.”
Someone needs to point out to Rosenberg that the moon has a night and day cycle.
Like Tesla, Rosenberg is not an astronomer. Funny how DREMT gets misled by appealing to non-authorities.
The moon has a night and day cycle because it is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, more than 12 times whilst the barycenter orbits the sun once. Not difficult to understand.
Like Tesla, Rosenberg is not an astronomer. Funny how DREMT gets misled by appealing to non-authorities.
If it were an appeal to authority I would be saying the article was correct because Rosenberg said so.
“According to this” author Rosenberg, DREMT is saying the article was correct.
Try “according to this” ClintR’s expert source Robert Frost:
The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.
Ball4 says:
”Like Tesla, Rosenberg is not an astronomer. Funny how DREMT gets misled by appealing to non-authorities.”
Funny that appealing to authority is a fallacy. When one appeals to non-authority one is actually appealing to something else that may not be a fallacy.
Careful with your logic its atrocious.
Not being an astronomer has some pretty valuable advantages. Not being a blubbering sycophant is one of the biggest ones.
Appealing to an authority that is backed by experimentally observed evidence is no problem bill, like ClintR’s NASA guy, proper videos, slide 16, Fig. 2b.
When one appeals to an authority on a subject that has no observed evidence like Tesla, then there is a problem in logic.
Nobody has said an article is correct due to whoever wrote it, so no appeal to authority has been made.
Somebody has said: “According to this” author though. That was an appeal to a non-authority so even worse than an appeal to an authority that doesn’t have any evidence.
Wrong, I said according to the article…and I was not saying it was correct because the article or the author says so. I was merely noting what was written in the article.
Ball4 says:
Appealing to an authority that is backed by experimentally observed evidence is no problem bill, like ClintRs NASA guy, proper videos, slide 16, Fig. 2b.
=======================
Slide 16 and Fig. 2(b) supports the non-spinner position and rejects the spinner position. The NASA guy and ‘proper videos’ merely prove the two motions look identical to most folks.
Then even bill does not understand the non-spinner position is incorrect for a non-rotating on its own internal axis moon when Fig. 2b, NASA guy, and the videos show the moon rotates on its own internal axis as observed once per rev. about an external axis.
DREMT writes according to an astronomical article and doesn’t even understand the article was written by an author without astronomical credentials. It’s only a two ring circus now that hilarious ClintR isn’t commenting, the place has less entertainment value but DREMT and bill are comically surging ahead to take over the lead.
I am aware that the author of the article is a geographer, not an astronomer.
My point is, an appeal to authority is where you argue that a statement is correct because its author says so. I am not arguing that. I merely noted that the article claims the moon does not rotate on its own axis. I was somewhat surprised to see a mainstream article make that claim, since it is not a mainstream viewpoint. That is the only reason I linked to the article.
Ball4 says:
Then even bill does not understand the non-spinner position is incorrect for a non-rotating on its own internal axis moon when Fig. 2b,
=======================
Fig. 2b is a depiction of rotation on an external axis a string strung from the external axis to the rigid object will wind up on the external axis and not on some imagined internal axis on fig. 2(b) which isn’t noted on the figure. That axis is entirely a product of your confused imagination.
bill, all the relevant axes are imaginary, not depicted. There are two imaginary axes in Fig. 2b, one external of rectangle through point O and one internal to rectangle through the rectangle cg.
Ball4 says:
bill, all the relevant axes are imaginary, not depicted. There are two imaginary axes in Fig. 2b, one external of rectangle through point O and one internal to rectangle through the rectangle cg.
===============================
Fig. 2(b) depicts point O as the axis of rotation. You are alone imagining another axis not depicted in the drawing. That unfortunately could cause you to flunk the exam on the topic due to an undisciplined imagination.
A single point is not an axis, bill.
Ball4 says:
”A single point is not an axis, bill.”
come on Ball4 quit the trolling. An axis viewed from above the axis can’t be anything but a single point. And that’s the point(s) illustrated in slide 16 and fig. 2 (b). You simply choose to imagine yet another point but obviously in an instruction diagram if the point isn’t indicated its not part of the lesson.
Geez, no bill, it is still an axis viewed from above. Keep clutching straws. The whole point of Fig. 2b is to show rotation about the cg added to Fig. 2b cg translation only. It is so easy to see in the figure, it was not needed to be noted, except to straw clutchers.
Go and troll somebody else.
Roesenberg “Planetary revolution can sometimes be confused with planetary rotation but they are two separate things.”
Different axes! Rosenberg does get that right, pointing out DREMT makes the elementary mistake confusing the two.
I do not confuse the two.
The moon has a night and day cycle because it is rotating about an internal axis (per Rosenberg like Earth is spinning) while moon orbits Earth-moon barycenter external axis, more than 12 times whilst the barycenter orbits the sun once. Not difficult to understand.
Two axes! DREMT confused them per Rosenberg.
I did not confuse the two. Stop the tricks, Ball4.
DREMT demonstrates remains confused over axes on the slides too never writing which one DREMT means; this subject is ALL very confusing to DREMT as DREMT appeals to non-authorities. What would help DREMT is appealing to a real astronomical authority possessing evidence like Robert Frost, ClintR’s NASA guy:
“The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
You are just trolling, Ball4.
Bindidon you are just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something will stick.
Bottom line is all the things you are throwing doesn’t care where the axis of rotation is. Navigational problems are not changed by one iota based upon if the axis is rotation is the earth/moon barycenter or the middle of the moon. So its all irrelevant to the question at hand.
The only way to determine what axis the moon is rotating on is via a close inspection of the forces that cause the moon to orbit the earth and all its variables such as gravitational influences of the sun and the other planets.
All the moon’s motion can be explained by the shape and tilt of its orbit and gravitational influences of other objects in space. These don’t stop working on the moon simply because its axis is in a different location.
Ball4 helped immensely with this debate with slide 16 where he called out the curvilinear translation of a connecting rod as being the equivalent of our moons motion. Then he said it also explained the motion of the Hubble Telescope when fixated on distant stars.
Only the second half of his claim is correct. As the diagram explains the connecting rod in curvilinear translation (as all objects in curvilinear translation) is in combination with usually 4 axes upon which the object is rotating.
An object with one axis cannot be in curvilinear translation and not also be rotating on internal axes relative to the forces that cause it to translate.
So spinners imagine the moon as not spinning from a view from space but being instead in curvilinear translation. But a close view of slide 16 will show that indeed as the control are curvilinear translates the control rod is indeed also rotating on the 4 axes.
In space, disconnect the right end of the curvilinear connecting rod and the connecting rod will rotate via centrifugal force to be an extension of the radius line leading from the center of the wheel to the axis at the still connected end of the connecting rod and the connecting rod will now be in rotation about the center of the wheel and no longer be rotating on an axis within the connecting rod.
Because the connecting rod is elongated it will also be obvious from space which axis the connecting rod is rotating upon. No optical illusion is possible with an elongated connecting rod.
The moon is elongated but its hard to see it is, but a close inspection will reveal the same facts. The moon will be elongated, that elongation remain pointed at the axis of its rotation just like the elongated connecting rod.
On its internal axis it will either not be moving or only moving a fraction of an arcsecond for a net zero movement per full rotation that is induced by gravitational forces surrounding it.
July 4, 2020 at 6:21 AM
“where (Ball4) called out the curvilinear translation of a connecting rod as being the equivalent of our moons motion.”
No bill, I have not called that out, curvilinear translation is NOT the moon’s motion of the horizontal connecting rod. The moon’s motion is both curvilinear translation and rotation combined. It is bill that calls out the moon’s motion has no rotation so is only curvilinear translation clearly wrong as shown by the horizontal rod.
“The moon’s motion is both curvilinear translation and rotation combined.“
No, the moon’s motion is just a rotation about an external axis (one passing through the Earth-moon barycenter).
That is slide 16 connecting rod in “curvilinear translation” DREMT orbiting about an external axis without rotation on its own internal axis which is shown as clearly not the moon’s motion.
Robert Frost NASA guy: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
No, the moon’s motion is just a rotation about an external axis (one passing through the Earth-moon barycenter). That is, motion like a ball on a string.
Ball on string has two axes of rotation, like the moon, as Robert Frost has repeatedly explained to DREMT.
Ball4 says:July 5, 2020 at 6:41 PM
Ball on string has two axes of rotation, like the moon, as Robert Frost has repeatedly explained to DREMT.
============================
No it doesn’t! If the ball on a string was rotating about an axis/COG more or less than once, it would wind itself up in the string.
Correct bill, you mostly have it but left out a couple words: If the ball on a string was rotating about an internal axis/COG more or less than once per rev. of the external axis, then it would wind itself up in the string.
The ball on a string is just rotating about an external axis, not rotating on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, the ball would wrap around the string.
Again, specifics are needed for poor DREMT: the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, not rotating more or less than once per rev. on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis more or less than once, the ball would wrap around the string.
#2
The ball on a string is just rotating about an external axis, not rotating on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, the ball would wrap around the string.
Ball4 says:
July 6, 2020 at 5:56 AM
Correct bill, you mostly have it but left out a couple words
========================
No words were left out.
hunter
You are such an ignorant, stubborn boaster…
What about reading the stuff I referred to in my comment above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-495779
Why don’t you have the balls to contact these Chinese scientists, and to explain them how wrong they are, as are, according to your ridiculous ‘thought’s, all people who did the same work in the US, in Russia, in Japan and in India ???
Be courageous, hunter, and contact all these people…
But… I know you won’t.
J.-P. D.
#2
The only way to determine what axis the moon is rotating on is via a close inspection of the forces that cause the moon to orbit the earth and all its variables such as gravitational influences of the sun and the other planets.
All the moons motion can be explained by the shape and tilt of its orbit and gravitational influences of other objects in space. These dont stop working on the moon simply because its axis is in a different location.
hunter
You can reply your incompetent and superficial blah blah as long as you want.
That blah blah doesn’t change a iota to the immense work performed by many people since centuries.
Over 40 years ago, I lived for a couple of years with a primary school teacher woman.
Today, she behaves exactly like you do: she doesn’t know anything, doesn’t read anything, and stays in arrogant guessing.
Good grief!
Luckily, people responsible for lunar landing programs are aware of all what people like you deliberately ignore.
J.-P. D.
Just say: OK, Bindidon.
There is no point trying to talk to him.
Bindidon says:
That blah blah doesn’t change a iota to the immense work performed by many people since centuries.
Luckily, people responsible for lunar landing programs are aware of all what people like you deliberately ignore.
==============================
Good grief Bindidon the moon rotating on the earth’s COG shouldn’t undo any work of any astronomer over the centuries.
What work are you talking about? If your argument has boiled down to some outlandish claim provide some support for it.
binny…”hunter …You can reply your incompetent and superficial blah blah as long as you want”.
The irony is that Bill is posing legitimate scientific questions and observations while you rave like the idiot I have claimed you to be. You’re out of your league and use an ad hominem attack in lieu of science.
binny…”I know, Pseudomod: once again, you wont understand”
I don’t know who you mean by Pseudomod but it’s not him who does not understand.
In both your examples they are talking about the orientation of the Moon’s axis of rotation wrt the lunar orbital plane. At no time do they claim the Moon is rotating about that axis. Furthermore, they are talking about libration in the first example. Based on your past posts on the subject, you don’t even know what that means.
It’s common practice when talking about the Moon’s orientation to assign it an axis perpendicular to its orbital plane. That’s because the Moon does not rotate about any axis so it is not known where the axis should be. They need to determine an axis at times to orient the Moon to the tilted Earth axis.
The lunar orbital plane is tilted at about 5 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane and the Earth’s axis is tilted another 23 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane. If you want to compare the position of the Moon in its Earth orbit to the position of the Earth in it’s solar orbit you need to assign the Moon an axis, even if it is imaginary.
Beautiful stuff for the stubborn Moon spin denialists:
https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid%20-%20Moon%20Same%20Side.htm
They will of course immediately give us a 100 % ‘scientific proof’ that Celestia’s orbit and spin computations are wrong.
Doesn’t matter that much!
J.-P. D.
Funny to see you are still commenting on this issue you care so little about…
But… Pseudomod: I very well care about the issue!
I care little about uninformed, unscientific contrarian ‘meaning’.
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon.
The moon rotates around the earth like the spokes on a wheel.
You could claim the spokes were spinning on their own center of gravity but you would look rather ridiculous in doing so. For the moon you can only make it semi-plausible because you can’t see the elongation of the moon caused by the gravitational forces.
bill hunter says:
“The moon rotates around the earth like the spokes on a wheel.”
Not really, sometimes it’s ahead, sometimes behind.
Because rotation is steady, orbital speed varies.
“you can’t see the elongation of the moon caused by the gravitational forces”.
Yeah, it’s +/- 0.1 m.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
”The moon rotates around the earth like the spokes on a wheel.
Not really, sometimes its ahead, sometimes behind.
Because rotation is steady, orbital speed varies.”
So you are arguing that if an item is not rotating smoothly its not rotating?
I’m arguing the moon rotates smoothly.
Nothing to do with its orbit.
Svante, an object can orbit with constant angular velocity while the orbital velocity varies. This does not prove axial rotation. Is it that you cannot visualize the movement? What leads you to believe it proves axial rotation!?
It doesn’t “orbit with constant angular velocity”.
Yes, it does.
Aside for the obvious variations due to the elliptical orbit.
That’s it, thus you can tell them apart.
Tell what apart?
Tell a) the varying orbital speed from b) the steady rotation on its own axis.
Question 1: Do you agree that if the moon was rotating about an external axis (revolving) plus rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth?
No, not if it’s tidally locked.
Incorrect. The transmographer proved that if an object is rotating about an external axis (revolving) plus rotating on its own axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
There is no point discussing libration because our differences are more fundamental than that.
You can’t set the transmographer to move like the moon, can you?
Yes, just rotate the object “around a point” without additionally rotating it on its own axis, and the object will keep the same face towards the center of the orbit.
Yes, just rotate the object “around a point” without additionally rotating it on its own axis more or less than once per rev. of the central axis, and the object will keep the same face towards the center of the orbit like in Fig. 2b.
Wrong, Ball4. Try actually using the transmographer instead of just lying about what happens when you use it.
Show your work then. Why are you afraid of that?
I already have. You have not. Go and troll somebody else.
You have not done so DREMT. Simply making things up is not helping your woefully inadequate cause.
Go and troll somebody else.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“just rotate the object around a point without additionally rotating it on its own axis, and the object will keep the same face towards the center of the orbit.”
That’s wrong, the moon shows 59% of it’s area.
So what is closer, Svante? The moon shows the same face to the Earth, or the moon shows all sides to the Earth?
The transmographer is being used to make a very simple distinction.
If you rotate an object about an external axis, plus on its own axis, do you see all sides of the object, or the same side? The answer is all sides. The transmographer proves that. We are not asking it to perfectly model every nuance of the motion of the moon.
If you rotate an object about an external axis, plus on its own internal axis once per rev. of the orbital external axis, do you see all sides of the object, or the same side?
Same side.
DREMT makes sure to never specify the axis being external, internal, or how many rotations on the internal axis per rev. of the external axis since doing so shows his case was lost and closed long ago. DREMT persists out of sheer boredom.
There are two rotation options in the transmographer, Ball4. You can rotate an object “around a point”, which is the equivalent of rotating an object around an external axis. Or, you can rotate an object “around center” which means rotating the object about its own axis.
If you rotate an object “around a point”, the object already moves like the moon, in that it keeps the same face pointed towards the center of the orbit. If you rotate it “around center” as well you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
Words don’t cut it DREMT, you have to do the work. Show your work so can see if done correctly to look like Fig. 2b, slide 16, videos or find where you made a mistake. It won’t add anything new, your case is lost and closed.
The Moon does a bit of both.
a) Its orbital speed varies.
b) Its rotation does not.
“DREMT makes sure to never specify the axis being external, internal, or how many rotations on the internal axis per rev. of the external axis since doing so shows his case was lost and closed long ago. DREMT persists out of sheer boredom.“
Let me make this absolutely crystal clear to you:
If an object is rotating about the external axis whilst rotating zero times on the internal axis per rev. of the external axis, you see the same side of the object from the center of the orbit.
If an object is rotating about the external axis whilst rotating any other number of times than zero on the internal axis per rev. of the external axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
That’s absolutely crystal clear wrong DREMT, it is just words, no evidence, which is why your case was lost and closed long ago.
#2
There are two rotation options in the transmographer, Ball4. You can rotate an object “around a point”, which is the equivalent of rotating an object around an external axis. Or, you can rotate an object “around center” which means rotating the object about its own axis.
If you rotate an object “around a point”, the object already moves like the moon, in that it keeps the same face pointed towards the center of the orbit. If you rotate it “around center” as well you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
Here it is:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
1) Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees. The object has moved around through half of one orbit and you see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with.
2) Now rotate the object around center 180 degrees. This simulates the additional rotation of the object about its own axis. You no longer see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with. You see the opposite side to the one you started with.
“Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees.”
DREMT doesn’t bother to tell us if the point is internal to the object or external. Hint: it makes a difference. Try again, remember to be absolutely crystal clear so then we know you are wrong.
1) Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees. Make sure the point is external to the object. The object has moved around through half of one orbit and you see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with.
2) Now rotate the object around center 180 degrees. This simulates the additional rotation of the object about its own axis. You no longer see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with. You see the opposite side to the one you started with.
Good, 1) was more clear but wrong without also rotating the object on its internal axis on the transmographer 180 (1/2 spin) to keep the same side presenting to the center thru the object’s external axis orbit. DREMT’s case remains lost, and closed. The transmographer was no help to DREMT’s cause, as expected.
OK, so Ball4 is a liar. All anyone needs to do is use the transmographer for themselves to see that Ball4 is a liar.
If they use it correctly, show steps, for rotation on internal axis and orbit on 0,0, the rectangle moves just like in Fig. 2b always presenting same face to (0,0). Show your steps DREMT so we can see where you go wrong. You know like:
Example: Select new square. (a square appears, right lower corner at (0,2)
Click on around center
Select rotate around a point, 180
See the square rotate 180 about cg internal axis. Different face to center, no orbital motion.
Then step it in orbit around an external point 0,0 while rotating on cg just enough each step keep same face at 0,0 as in Fig. 2b. Show your steps, they add to 1 rev. on its cg axis per orbit of 0,0.
1) Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees. Make sure the point is external to the object. Do not have the “around center” option selected. The object has moved around through half of one orbit and you see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with.
2) Now rotate the object “around center” 180 degrees (so this time, you do select the “around center” option). This simulates the additional rotation of the object about its own axis. You no longer see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with. You see the opposite side to the one you started with.
I did it for the 4 cardinal directions, DREMT should use smaller steps around the compass to be convincing.
Play around with whatever steps around the compass you want.
When you are ready to admit you were wrong, just let me know.
“Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees.”
That HAS to have the “around center” option selected.
Rotate an object around an external point (0,0) 180 degrees, you have to translate the rectangle to the next 180 cardinal point for me was right top corner translated to (-2,0). Now the top face is facing (0,0) instead of bottom face. So, then I had to click on rotate around a point, 180 to rotate on cg to get the same bottom face pointed at (0,0) like the moon.
See, its not hard DREMT, show your steps, then anyone can point out where you go wrong.
“That HAS to have the “around center” option selected”
No, it does not. There is a button labelled “Rotate”. When you click on “Rotate”, without the “around center” option selected, the transmographer rotates the object around a point.
When you click on “Rotate” with the “around center” option selected, the transmographer rotates the object about its own axis.
You are either dishonest or sincerely incompetent.
Incompetent? Heres incompetent, dishonest corrected: There is a button labelled “Rotate”. When you click on “Rotate”, without the “around center” option selected, the transmographer rotates the object around an external point.
Yes, Ball4, an external point. Shall we go through it again?
There are two rotation options in the transmographer, Ball4. You can rotate an object “around a point”, which is the equivalent of rotating an object around an external axis. Or, you can rotate an object “around center” which means rotating the object about its own axis.
If you rotate an object “around a point”, the object already moves like the moon, in that it keeps the same face pointed towards the center of the orbit. If you rotate it “around center” as well you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
And the axis is NOT the axis of interest, the axis is a 45 degree line though (0,0)! See you have to show your steps to find out where you go wrong. I did the rotation about the external axis of interest on the correct axis through (0,0).
You can rotate an object “around a point”, which is the equivalent of rotating an object around an external axis BUT it is not the orbital axis transmographer uses, you can’t use that option DREMT, it selects another axis not of interest.
You have been misled by yet another source DREMT.
It is the axis at the center of the orbit the object makes as it is moved around in a circle by the transmographer. So…yes, it is the orbital axis. Try pressing “reset”, select a new object, make sure you do not select the “around center” option, make sure your object is outside of the 0,0 area, set the around a point section to 0,0, 45 degrees and then keep pressing “rotate”. You should clearly see the object orbiting a central axis (at 0,0).
No I do not clearly see the object orbiting (0,0) the transmographer does not rotate the square on external point 0,0 through to the proper orbital position 180 cardinal point as I did DREMT. It is clear you have not operated the tool, or if you have, show steps like I did so anyone can find where you go wrong. You have been misled and are trying to mislead others.
Ball4 is upset because the transmographer proves that if an object is rotating about an external axis, and rotating on its own axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
He knows that proves me right, and him wrong, on everything we have discussed.
He will probably respond with more denial.
I deny I am upset.
DREMT is still afraid to show his detail steps proving himself right because they don’t exist. Or show your work DREMT so anyone can find your mistakes. DREMT won’t, he can’t. I’ve already shown my steps how to use the transmographer correctly, DREMT has not. DREMT’s case is lost & closed long ago.
Yes, he responded with more denial.
binny…”Beautiful stuff for the stubborn Moon spin denialists:”
The first thing you should notice about the orbiting Moon at your link, is that the near side (with the large spot), the centre, and the far side are all moving along concentric circles. As the Moon approaches the screen on the left side there is a small spot on the Moon. From that small spot, you can orient the near side (with the large spot) the centre, and the far side to prove what I have pointed out.
That motion is translation, a changing of position of the Moon in its orbit, the same as a horse would change position while powering itself around a track. Your interpretation of the Moon at your link is such that the horse would turn 360 degrees on its COG during one orbit of the track.
That would mean his hooves would have to turn in a complete circle, ON THE GROUND, once per revolution. The reality is that the side of the horse nearest the centre of the track, the side farthest from the inside, and the COG all move around the track in concentric circles/ovals. It is not possible for the horse to rotate once per revolution of the track while all of its parts are moving in concentric paths.
“Your interpretation of the Moon at your link is such that the horse would turn 360 degrees on its COG during one orbit of the track.”
It does. The jockey turns the horse 4 times in the 4 x 90 degree turns = 360. Rotating horse once on its internal axis per rev. of the exterior axis. Sound familiar?
ball4…you are mistaking a change of position for a rotation about an axis/COG.
If a dancer or an ice skater faces you with arms extended to the side, and she rotates 180 degrees, she is now facing away from you. If she rotates another 180 degrees she is facing you again. That is rotation per definition.
Now put her on a platform with the platform attached to a rail on a track that allows the platform to be driven in a circle/ellipse around the track. The dancer mounts the disk at mid-track so she is facing you with her right arm extended toward the centre of the track and her left arm pointing away.
You ask her to rotate 180 and she does, so now here left arm is facing the centre of the track and her right arm away. You ask her to rotate another 180 degrees and now she is facing you again with right arm pointed toward the track centre.
You now start the platform moving slowly around the track. As it moves away from you and reaches the middle of the first bend her right arm is still pointed to the centre of the track. The platform moves to the middle of the next straightaway and her right arm is still pointed to the centre of the track but she is now facing away from you.
The platform continues to the the middle of the near curve and her right arm is still pointed to the track centre, then the platform moves back to the middle of the first straightaway. Now she is in her original position facing you.
At no time did her left arm rotate so it was pointed at the centre of the track as was required in the first example where she actually did rotate through 360 degrees.
Are you trying to claim that both the motions described are the same? In the fist, she rotated on the stationary platform through 360 degrees using her muscle power. At one point, her left arm pointed to the centre of the track. In the second example she simply stood on a moving platform, making no attempt to rotate about her COG.
Can you honestly not see that the first motion is pure rotation while the second represents translation? You cannot argue that the motion along each straightaway is rectilinear translation. So, what is the motion around each curve if not curvilinear translation?
No torque has been applied to her on the platform as it orbits the track. No force has caused her body to rotate about its COG. She has changed direction but only due to the properties of the orbiting platform to which is is attached.
“So, what is the motion around each curve if not curvilinear translation?”
It can’t be just curvilinear translation Gordon, as slide 16 points out for the horizontal connecting rod, that would mean the horse would remain staring at the same filly in the stands the whole race.
What is observed is the horse also rotates on its own internal axis to face 180 degrees to the left and observe another filly down the backstretch while orbiting the external axis once per rev. (360, 2 pi) at the center of the race track.
Four different fillys get to try to attract the race winner.
ball4…”What is observed is the horse also rotates on its own internal axis ”
Go back to the wooden horse of the MGR. Do you recall the type that has a pole running from the base of the MGR to the ceiling, passing through the horse so the horse can go up and down on the pole? Make it so the horse can also rotate around that pole as the MGR turns.
So, we set the horse to rotate 5 times on the pole per revolution of the MGR. That means the head of the horse rotates through 360 degrees 5 times per revolution of the MGR.
Let’s reduce it to the one rotation per revolution as is claimed for the Moon. Either one rotation of the horse means its head turns completely around the pole to its butt position and back to facing forward or it means the horse stays in its stationary position through the revolution.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim rotation of the horse as both it turning around the pole 360 degrees and claim the a rotation for it remaining stationary through one revolution of the MGR.
The latter is an illusion of rotation for the simple reason that the horse does not rotate 360 degrees around the pole during one revolution of the MGR. The horse is changing position, nothing more.
The latter is also translation because each part of the horse moves in concentric circles around the stationary hub of the MGR in exactly the same way they’d move in parallel line in a straight line.
From what I have seen of transmorgraphers, you cannot replicate this action unless the transmorgrapher supplies a rotating radial line. You would have to attach the left side of the wooden horse to a rigid radial arm at x=5, y=0 and allow the horse to rotate around 0,0. With it attached to the radial arm it would not be possible for the horse to rotate about its pole axis.
With it attached to the radial arm it would not be possible for the horse to rotate about its pole axis more or less than once per rev. of the mgr. I’ve shown DREMT in detail steps how to use the transmographer to show this motion. It’s trivially simple Gordon, even you can do it.
Ball4 continues to lie about the transmographer.
It’s trivially simple to show correct orbital motion about 0,0 of a square with the transmographer, even DREMT can do it. DREMT just needs to copy the detail steps I posted.
Indeed, it is very easy. Just follow step 1:
1) Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees. Make sure the point is external to the object. Do not have the “around center” option selected. The object has moved around through half of one orbit and you see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with.
2) Now rotate the object “around center” 180 degrees (so this time, you do select the “around center” option). This simulates the additional rotation of the object about its own axis. You no longer see the same side from the center of the orbit as you did to start with. You see the opposite side to the one you started with.
“Rotate an object around a point 180 degrees. Make sure the point is external to the object.”
Orbital axis is not selected by transmographer, this is a fail. DREMT has simply moved an object in space with no regard to orbital axis. Quite funny.
DREMT, the square needs to move wrt to orbital axis as I showed you how to do in detail.
Since what you “showed” involved misusing the “around center” option and using the “translate” feature despite the fact we are supposed to be using rotation only, your guidance can be safely ignored.
Following DREMT’s transmographer use means the moon would move over Earth’s North pole, spin around so the moon’s north pole is now its south pole, and get dumped on opposite side of Earth. Quite funny.
The correct moon motion moving through 180 degrees on its orbital axis is easy to show with the transmographer as I’ve already demonstrated & can be replicated by anyone interested except poor, lost DREMT.
You lost. Now go away.
I propose all the pseudo-engineers and other better-knowers to carefully read the paper written about 2 decades ago by J. Chapront:
Lunar Laser Ranging: measurements, analysis, and contribution to the reference systems
Chapront / Francou
https://www.iers.org/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EN/IERS/Publications/tn/TechnNote34/tn34_097.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
and to search for all occurences of ‘rotation’.
*
By the way, it is always interesting to look at real work done by real engineers… in comparison with this eternal, stupid toy-like blah blah.
*
Not only we can see how difficult it is to handle photon returns during laser ranging operations; also, we can see how accurate the exact lunar motion (orbiting, rotation, and physical – i.e. forced and free – librations) has to be in order to obtain valuable data.
J.-P. D.
He still does not get it…
Pseudomod
I very well did get it!
You deliberately ignore all what I was willing to learn, that’s all.
OK, Bindidon.
binny…”Lunar Laser Ranging: measurements, analysis, and contribution to the reference systems”
Nowhere in the link you provide do the authors mention a full rotation about a local lunar axis, or even a partial rotation. They mention theorized libration-causing torques on the Moon from the Sun and other planets that no one has ever measured, nor can they measure them.
They only mention libration. It’s about time you tried to understand what libration means and that the extent to which they apply it is theoretical.
As usual, Robertson was not even able to read Chapront’s paper:
– page 102
… The moon in rotation is submitted to two different kinds of effects: forced and free librations.
– page 105
… They also depend on the lunar rotation which is provided by a theory of the forced libration and the free libration of the Moon.
– page 106
… The fits of the lunar orbital and rotational parameters in S2001 are listed hereunder; …
– page 114
Nevertheless, the first goal of our analysis is to improve the analytical solution of the orbital and rotational motions of the Moon.
The goal of this article, Robertson, was of course not to give us a proof of Moon’s rotation about its center of mass.
Why the heck should people like Chapront, Calame, Eckardt, Moons and all the others give that proof in each of their publications?
Chapront’s goal was to report about the improvement given by Lunar Laser Ranging to the computation of the ephemeris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris
by applying small, but very important corrections to Moon’s basic motion as given by the differential motion equations derived by Newton, which impossibly can contain the current effect of e.g. tidal torque by Earth, because Newton did not handle it properly.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
Selected quotes from Bindidon sources:
”Nevertheless, the first goal of our analysis is to improve the analytical solution of the orbital and rotational motions of the Moon.”
”The astronomical position calculated from an ephemeris is given in the spherical polar coordinate system of right ascension and declination. Some of the astronomical phenomena of interest to astronomers are eclipses, apparent retrograde motion/planetary stations, planetary ingresses, sidereal time, positions for the mean and true nodes of the moon, the phases of the Moon, and the positions of minor celestial bodies such as Chiron. Ephemerides are used in celestial navigation and astronomy. They are also used by some astrologers”
Recognizing that orbital paths include parameters not included in simple rotation like tilt and ellipses. One can distinguish some characteristics of one versus the other. But both incorporate a form of rotation, revolution, spin, turn. . . .which is the precise thing we are talking about. Orbits exhibit a bit more complexity than a spinning object. Engineers are very much aware of the additional complexity and must add stuff to mimic the additional elements.
What is missing in your sources is why any of these differences make such a difference one should ignore the mechanics of how the moon rotates and move the axis of rotation.
As a question suppose the orbit were perfectly circular with zero tilt would you then recognize that the object in tidal locked orbit not be rotating on its own axis? Knowing how inculcated you are probably not.
hunter
This text is nothing more than showing off without a trained background. You don’t write what you know, but, like does Robertson, what you vaguely suspect.
” As a question suppose the orbit were perfectly circular with zero tilt would you then recognize that the object in tidal locked orbit not be rotating on its own axis? ”
If you had the engineering education and professional experience that you pretend here, you would know that the question makes no sense at all.
Luckily, you were never part of any interplanetary spacecraft project!
I suspect people like you to never have been an engineer. Your and Robertson’s behavior rather let me think of retired college student teachers.
*
Thus yes: feel free to name me ‘inculcated’. That is anyway better then to be an ignorant boaster like you.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
hunter
This text is nothing more than showing off without a trained background. You don’t write what you know, but, like does Robertson, what you vaguely suspect.
” As a question suppose the orbit were perfectly circular with zero tilt would you then recognize that the object in tidal locked orbit not be rotating on its own axis? ”
If you had the engineering education and professional experience that you pretend here, you would know that the question makes no sense at all.
=======================================
LMAO! You are a real piece of work Bindidon.
It is you who is trying to make an issue of the elliptical nature of the moon’s orbit as being a critical test for which axis it rotates upon and somebody comes along and challenges that silly argument with a sharp scalpel and you scream foul!!
What we have here is somebody with a view of physics from the ”ideal” sphere groupie never had a real job crowd where gravity has no effect on such shapes and then proceeds to argue that the perturbations on the moon’s motion by the shape of its orbit is critical evidence it is freely spinning on its own axis.
I see the argument as the functional equivalent of a 4wd jeep bouncing through the desert with an orange 76 ball impaled on the end of long whip antenna attached to its rear bumper and a discussion ensues regarding the center of rotation of the 76 ball. I maintain its the rear bumper of the jeep and you argue that can’t be so because the danged ball is bouncing all over the place. . . .it must be free floating in space!
Indeed I agree that your argument demonstrates a total lack of sanity and I am ecstatic you now recognize that to be the case.
binny…” page 102
The moon in rotation is submitted to two different kinds of effects: forced and free librations.
page 105
They also depend on the lunar rotation which is provided by a theory of the forced libration and the free libration of the Moon”.
That’s exactly what I said, they are talking about libration, a tiny apparent rotation, not a real 360 degree rotation about an axis.
Robertson
I mimic Hunter:
#2
Chapront’s goal was to report about the improvement given by Lunar Laser Ranging to the computation of the EPHEMERIS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris
by applying small, but very important corrections to Moon’s basic motion as given by the differential motion equations derived by Newton, which impossibly can contain the current effect of e.g. tidal torque by Earth, because Newton did not handle it properly.
*
Chapront’s work, Robertson, consisted in adding details to Moon’s rotational motion.
It is as I write all the time: you aren’t able to read documents, and therefore always stay at the same knowledge level.
*
This is the reason why you always write the same trash about anomalies:
” What is it about negative anomalies you don’t understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins. ”
How is it possible to keep that dumb, Robertson?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, non-spinners are not saying the moon doesn’t rotate!!!
Non-spinners are not saying the moon doesn’t rotate about an external axis!!!
bill, non-spinners are incorrectly saying moon doesn’t spin about an internal axis!!!
ball4…”bill, non-spinners are incorrectly saying moon doesnt spin about an internal axis!!!”
Explain how it can rotate about an internal axis if the near side, the COG, and the far side are all moving in concentric orbits. That’s akin to claiming that Mars and Venus are rotating around the Earth.
Ball4 says:
Non-spinners are not saying the moon doesnt rotate about an external axis!!!
bill, non-spinners are incorrectly saying moon doesnt spin about an internal axis!!!
========================================
Well remove the word incorrectly and we are in agreement. But if you say there are two rotations the string will wind up on the ball.
So which one do you want to get rid of?
The string in the videos is observed to not wind up the ball when the ball makes exactly (no more, no less) than 1 rotation on its internal axis per rev. of the external axis.
As explained by ClintR’s NASA guy similar for moon on internal axis and external axis: “The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.”
Mars and Venus both rotate more or less than once on their own internal axis and orbit the sun on an external axis. Pretty simple guys, for the moon just listen to the NASA guy, some others have misled you.
Wrong, as explained 200 times already. The ball on a string is just revolving. No axial rotation.
Again, specifics are needed for poor, lost DREMT: the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, not rotating more or less than once per rev. on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., the ball would wrap around the string.
Evidence: the videos.
The ball on a string is just rotating about an external axis, not rotating on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, the ball would wrap around the string.
hunter
As Ball4 already replied, you and your friends-in-denial pretend against evidence shown by hundreds of historical, recent and present documents that the Moon doesn’t rotate about its center of mass.
Tesla’s quick shot and a few papers written by the Belgrade maffia (Savic, Vujicic, Tomic) can’t change anything here.
This is absolute, deliberate ignorance.
Point final for me since months.
But as long as I find further documents showing how desperately wrong you are, I’ll continue to present them.
J.-P. D.
All you prove is that you do not understand the Non-Spinner position.
because the non-spinner position is wrong.
Until you understand something, you cannot know if it is right or wrong.
Bindidon does understand the non-spinner position to know that it is wrong. So does the NASA guy which is why he wrote what he did.
The Moon both rotates on its axis and revolves about the Earth in about 27 days.
I have not seen any evidence that Bindidon understands the Non-Spinner position.
I haven’t seen any evidence he or you understand the non-spinner position Ball4. For example in Fig. 2(b) the author illustrates rotation on an external axis and all you can see is an internal axis that the author didn’t illustrate. Talking about dense!
Still, the author properly rotated the rectangle on its cg in the second position bill. The author knows how, bill does not.
#2
Go and troll somebody else.
ball4…”Ball on string has two axes of rotation, like the moon, as Robert Frost has repeatedly explained to DREMT”.
Nope…the ball (not ball4) is rotating about the axis at the other end of the string but it is performing curvilinear translation around its orbit. That’s obvious, the point where it is attached to the string, its COG, and the far side of the ball are moving along parallel paths.
Furthermore, those points are moving at the same angular velocity as the string. Put that together with parallel paths and you have the definition of curvilinear translation.
As I pointed out before, translation has two definitions, at least, in physics. One of them is a translation of axes. If you took an x-y coordinate axis and moved its origin around a circle, the axis would remain upright as in the examples shown in several textbooks.
However, if you attached the -ve y-axis to a radial line at 12 o’clock, with the radial line centred on another axis at x’,y’ = 0′,0′ and allowed the radial line to rotate CCW from 12 o’clock, the original x,y axis would be translating in an orbit about x’,y’ while the entire x-y axis rotated about x’,y’. All of the y-ordinates 9on the x-y plane, being parallel to the x axis, in the x,y axis, would turn in parallel lines about x’,y’.
Whereas the original x,y axis is now rotating around x’,y’. the motion performed by the isolated x,y axis in its orbital path is pure translation. The x,y axis cannot turn about its own x,y = 0,0 because it is attached to a radial line on the other axis, x’y’. Therefore the motion of the x,y axis, attached to the rotating radial line, is a constant change of position, not a rotation about its own axis at x,y = 0,0. That constant change of position is translation, not rotation about a local axis.
“the ball (not ball4) is rotating about the axis at the other end of the string but it is performing curvilinear translation around its orbit.”
If that were true, the ball would wrap the string staring at one wall of the room, as in slide 16 horizontal connecting rod labeled “curvilinear translation”.
Actually, with needed specifics: ball on a string is not just in curvilinear translation, it rotating about an external axis, not rotating more or less than once per rev. on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., the ball would wrap around the string.
Evidence: the videos.
The ball on a string is just rotating about an external axis, not rotating on its own axis. If it was both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, the ball would wrap around the string.
Instructions for determining if an orbiting body is rotating on its own axis.
Fashion a wire harness. Take a piece of wire and twist a loop dead center in the middle of the wire. Then twist a loop in the wire at each end of the wire.
Then bend the two end of the wire equally so that the two loops in the end of the wire are in alignment perpendicularly to the loop in the center of the wire. You now have a harness to fit over the axis of a spherical orbiting body such that the orbiting body can freely rotate on its axis while orbiting.
Attach a string to the center loop of the bridle and spin it into orbit around your hand.
If the orbiting object is only showing one side to your hand its not rotating on its own axis.
If its showing all its sides to your hand it is rotating on its own axis. It doesn’t matter which way it orbits or which way it spins you will get the same results.
Conclusion: The view from space of an orbiting body that is spinning may or may not be spinning on its own axis. If the view from space of an orbiting body does not appear to be spinning on its axis it is spinning on its axis. That’s because spin a + spin o equals zero if and only if no spin is observed from space.
So spinners need to be cognizant of what makes up their perceptions.
Instead what we are seeing is some rather clumsy attempts at characterizing orbital spin as not being a spin but being some kind of general plane motion that combines a spin with some kind of translation when all it actually results in is the rotation that it is. Inculcation is amazingly efficient at invoking unreal concepts.
Simple stuff.
Instructions for determining if a body (any body, anywhere) is rotating.
Compare the object’s orientation to the distant ‘fixed galaxies’. If the orientation is changing relative to the ‘fixed galaxies’, then it is rotating. Period.
*****************************************
Bill, if you try your definition with an object in an elliptical orbit, you will see a problem. In an elliptical orbit, the rotation of a moon “about its own axis” will be at a fixed rate (relative to the distant galaxies), while the rotation of the moon “about the planet” will be at a variable rate.
In the language of your example, you could keep the same side generally toward your hand, if the rotation rate about the axis is equal to the *average* rotation rate round the planet. Such a moon will wobble relative to your harness. With your definition, it would seem that you would have to say this moon is rotating forward and then back with each orbit. But there is no torque that would cause such a motion.
Question 1: Do you agree that if the moon was rotating about an external axis (revolving) plus rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth?
Tim!?
Tim Folkerts says:
Instructions for determining if a body (any body, anywhere) is rotating.
Compare the objects orientation to the distant fixed galaxies. If the orientation is changing relative to the fixed galaxies, then it is rotating. Period.
==========================================
Nothing contrary there to anything I said Tim. My piece applied only to an orbiting body, period. Its rotating. period. Thats true whether it appears so from space or not.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Bill, if you try your definition with an object in an elliptical orbit, you will see a problem. In an elliptical orbit, the rotation of a moon about its own axis will be at a fixed rate (relative to the distant galaxies), while the rotation of the moon about the planet will be at a variable rate.”
====================================================
Complete revolutions are at a fixed rate Tim. The fact the orbit is a stretched circle exerts variable gravitational forces on the object as it rotates but it reliably completes a revolution on a regular basis as that variation of forces cancel themselves out.
I fully understand that gravity in this situation is only rigid to the extent necessary to achieve complete control over the moon. But engineers design stuff all the time to meet minimal standards of performance having some wobble or variability is even desired at times.
Tim Folkerts says:
”In the language of your example, you could keep the same side generally toward your hand, if the rotation rate about the axis is equal to the *average* rotation rate round the planet. Such a moon will wobble relative to your harness. With your definition, it would seem that you would have to say this moon is rotating forward and then back with each orbit. But there is no torque that would cause such a motion.”
===========================
Yes there is a force involved for physical longitude libration. It has been measured with a reflecting target left on the moon by mankind. I think its about 1/4 of an arcsecond which leads me to think it could either be an actual rotation change in speed or at a minimum a stretching of the moon’s surface.
Regardless, gravitational friction is a force that creates some torque. However, most of the variability is brought about by conditions the earth’s gravity has no influence over which was the speed and direction in which the moon inserted itself into orbit and has nothing to do with determining which axis the moon will end up rotating upon as specified in rigid body dynamics.
Personally I think about the best argument against my position is that the earth, moon, is not a rigid system lacking materials to connect them, but the force of gravity does and in the relevant respects acts like a perfect material in that it doesn’t suffer from bending fatigue. . . .though the connecting point on the moon might somewhat.
I would be fine accepting the moon rotates on its own if somebody could give a logical explanation for why that doesn’t imply the earth rotates around the moon vs vice versa or proves orbiting is some kind of illusion.
“Complete revolutions are at a fixed rate Tim. ”
No. Kepler figures this out 400 years ago. An orbiting object sweeps out equal areas in equal times. When the orbiting object is closest, it sweeps through space at a greater angular speed. When it is farthest, it sweeps through space at a smaller angular speed.
The object itself, however, rotates around its own axis constant angular speed the whole time.
#2
“Complete revolutions are at a fixed rate Tim. ”
I’m not sure what your point is, Bill
If one “complete revolution” takes 30 days for a moon around a planet, then yes, every other “complete revolution would also take 30 days. But that is not noteworthy.
What is noteworthy is that is quite possible for 1/2 of the orbit to take 25 days and the other 1/2 (of the distance traveled around the ellipse) to take 5 days. From the planet you would watch this moon travel fast across the sky some times, but slowly across the sky other times. That “complete revolution” would occur at varying rates.
And conversely, from the moon you would see the planet moving fast across the sky at some times, and slowly at other times.
But you would see the stars moving at a constant rate. The rotation of the moon would be at a fixed rate relative to the stars. Since the rotation is constant in the inertial reference frame, then it is MUCH simpler to describe the rotation from the perspective of the stars.
I said in one of my first posts in this thread that its probably easier to classify rotations of all the bodies the same.
I also said it’s a rather arcane question from an astronomy standpoint. However, it is important from a physics/engineering standpoint.
For astronomers switching viewpoints is probably more inconvenient than any benefit that could be achieved for the foreseeable future.
Generally science doesn’t blow apart traditional thoughts until proven necessary, like Americans switching for the imperial system to the metric system. Science did because it makes the work easier both in communications and computations.
The debate here I see as being important in bringing to light that authority should always be questioned.
tim…”Bill, if you try your definition with an object in an elliptical orbit, you will see a problem”.
Tim, there is a misunderstanding over the mechanics of the Moon-Earth system. I agree with your claim that in more eccentric orbits there are issues with placing a radial line in a circular orbit as a radial line in an eccentric orbit.
In a circular orbit, the radial line representing gravitational centripetal force is slightly different than a radial line in an eccentric orbit. In an elliptical orbit, the Earth is at one focal point of the ellipse and a radial line from the rotating Moon no longer points directly at the Earth.
To find the radial line in such a case you must draw lines from both focal points to the Moon and bisect the angle formed. That radial line representing the centripetal force on the Moon will now be a sine or cosine function of the gravitational force.
In a near-circular elliptical orbit like the Moon’s orbit, the difference won’t be enough to significantly affect the centripetal force but the change in direction of the near face will be enough to allow us to peek around the edge of the Moon further in certain parts of the orbit. That, as you know, is called libration.
The point is, Tim, there are no forces operating tangential to the Moon’s axis that could cause a torque, therefore the Moon does not rotate during libration, it simply changes position slightly wrt the Earth.
If you consider that radial line I just described, where’s the evidence that it rotates around the Moon’s axis at any time? There is no evidence, the motion of the Moon in its orbit is purely translation, a translation no different than if it was moving in a straight line, which it is. The effect of Earth’s gravitational field on the Moon is nothing more than a gradual redirection of the Moon from its straight-line linear momentum.
Instructions for determining that the Moon is NOT rotating about its own axis
Download the data available at
https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/search/map/Moon/LRO/LOLA/Lunar_LRO_LOLA_Global_LDEM_118m_Mar2014
– process it,
– process newest available Lunar Laser Ranging data,
– compare and merge the two evaluations,
and
– prove that people who did that job, e.g.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.9977S/abstract
had it all wrong.
For that to do, you need knowledge, and… lots of cojones.
J.-P. D.
Still making the same mistakes…
☺️
Ooops!? Sent by inadvertance, apos.
I have no idea why I should go to so much trouble instinctively knowing from navigation experience that a lunar orbiting measurement device is also revolving around the earth right along with the moon and will not produce any difference to the moon surface mapping.
Instructions for determining that the Moon is NOT rotating about its center of mass
Download the data available at
https://tinyurl.com/yavwhpfu
– process it,
– process newest available Lunar Laser Ranging data,
– compare and merge the two evaluations,
and
– prove that people who did that job, e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/ybr5n6uq
had it all wrong.
That would be a really constructive approach, much better than whining about ‘appeal to authority’ all the time, or claiming that the Moon does not rotate about its center of mass… by definition [sic].
For that to do, you need knowledge, and… lots of cojones.
J.-P. D.
…and now making them in duplicate posts!
We already know that the gravitation force from earth causes a small amount of variability in the rotation rate of the moon but it has no effect on how long it takes to make a single rotation around the earth. So just why would I want to prove the data wrong that I had already reasoned would be there as a result of the elliptical shape of the moons orbit? It’s just more proof that the moon’s orbit is it’s rotation.
hunter
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-496513
OK, Bindidon.
You always know you won the argument when the opposition’s argument boils down to pure ad hominem. thanks for the compliment Bindidon!
hunter
In that case I would have won all arguments concerning climate affairs when Robertson’s absolute nonsense boiled down to pure ad hominems like ‘blithering idiot’ etc etc (about at least hundred times I guess).
Well in my book words like ‘blithering idiot’ are indeed ad hominems. . . . and are certainly not accurate. If one were a blithering idiot one would be incapable of posting in this forum.
But what I was referring to were posts with nothing but ad hominems.
If Robertson (and I don’t know what posts you are talking about) simply had posts with ad hominems and no civil debate then yeah. . . .claim victory. But good debate involves a reasonable argument and if a reasonable argument is present then one cannot claim victory without addressing that reasonable argument.
binny…”when Robertsons absolute nonsense boiled down to pure ad hominems like blithering idiot etc etc (about at least hundred times I guess)”.
I have yet to downgrade you to blithering idiot, I have stayed at plain idiot. After your lame attempts at trying to prove the Moon rotates on its axis, based on an appeal to authority, and clearly mistaking libration for rotation, I may have to reconsider.
Robertson
” bAfter your lame attempts at trying to prove the Moon rotates on its axis, based on an appeal to authority, …”
Your keep as dumb as ever.
Every Pseudoskeptic like you, hunter, ClintR ans others always claim about ‘appeal to authority’ when they lack valuable arguments.
” … and clearly mistaking libration for rotation, I may have to reconsider. ”
No, Robertson. You are unintentionally mistaking libration for rotation.
You are not even able to make a distinction between
– optical, apparent
and
– physical libration.
You are simply too uneducated and incompetent to discuss such things.
No wonder: how could a guy talk about things like libration if he isn’t able to discuss about anomalies, baselines and reference periods?
Learn, Robertson, learn, instead of boasting.
J.-P. D.
binny…”You are not even able to make a distinction between
– optical, apparent and – physical libration”.
What is physical libration? It suggests the Moon is moving back and forth in its orbit but where are the physical tangential forces that could cause such an angular movement?
In engineering, we are required to account for such forces, if they are not present, we don’t infer them. If they are not there, they are not there.
There are only two parameters in the lunar orbit: the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational force. Some are claiming the Sun and other planets are applying torques but I’d like to see the proof.
Libration could not occur with a purely circular orbit, as Tim pointed out a while back, it is a result of an elliptical orbit.
I have described that in great detail and you’ve had your chance to rebut my science, but you have not. All you have done is appeal to authority without bothering to prove you understand your authority figures.
Once again, briefly, in a circular orbit, gravitational force would be applied constantly on the Moon along a radial line. As the orbit becomes more elliptical, however, the force is not applied absolutely along a radial line but on an angle to that of a circular orbit. That breaks the gravitational force into a different radial and tangential component.
Since the new radial component has the near face of the Moon pointing slightly away from the Earth’s centre, it enables us to peak around the corner of the near face edge. That APPARENT rotation is libration. The Moon does not turn at all about its axis, the eccentricity of the orbit allows us to see more around the edge.
With regard to baselines and anomalies, I have offered NOAA’s definition for both and you still don’t get it. You have still to explain how at least three different trends, one representing a recovery from cooling, another of 18 years which is flat, and a more recent positive trend due to a massive El Nino, can be lumped together under one trend of 0.12C/decade representing the entire range.
You are so hung up on number crunching that you fail to grasp the physical contexts which are right in front of your nose, depending on the length of your nose. If you have a really long proboscis, like Pinocchio, you may have trouble focusing at that length.
Bindidon says:
”No, Robertson. You are unintentionally mistaking libration for rotation.
You are not even able to make a distinction between
optical, apparent
and
physical libration.
You are simply too uneducated and incompetent to discuss such things.”
Hmmmm, so you agree libration isn’t rotation. Then why do you use it in your argument for the moon rotating on its axis?
The non-spinners are using a real rotation on an external axis out of rigid body dynamics as the base of their argument for a rotation on the COG of earth. It seems to me that if you are going to argue for the moon rotating on its own axis you would use ‘evidence of rotation’ as have the non-spinners. But apparently not.
So your argument for the moon rotating on its own axis doesn’t include a single argument for the moon rotating on its own axis? Just an appeal to authority because yo daddy told you so?
Tesla, at age 63, was looking after pigeons and dodging hotel bills when it came to him. The moon does not rotate.
He wrote several articles for the Electrical Experimenter, “the popular electrical news illustrated”, which also published some science fiction, and this is also where you find his great moon epiphany.
It’s quite a sad story, he deserved better:
https://tinyurl.com/ycny8xum
In all those years since 1919, no one has really understood it, except for bill hunter, DREMT, Gordon, ClintR, gbaikie and a little known Serb astronomer (although looking at his resume I think he knew better).
Moon time at 12:44 in the video.
Shhhh.
svante…”Tesla, at age 63, was looking after pigeons and dodging hotel bills when it came to him. The moon does not rotate”.
Ad homs are the only device you have in your arsenal since you cannot prove the Moon rotates on its axis. Tesla and the rest of us you mentioned have proved their points using science, which even factions in NASA fail to understand.
You see, the mind is prone to illusion, and when coupled with an appeal to authority and the blind acceptance of a paradigm, it can be fairly useless for doing real science. Look no further than NASA GISS for a good example of what I am getting at, an organization run on pseudo-science.
In your case, where you’re understanding of basic physics is challenged, it becomes impossible to understand science. That’s why you are an alarmist.
Another case of projection. You are describing yourself, king of ad hominems.
Gordon may throw some ad homs along with an argument at a live person, who can respond to the argument. Nothing wrong with that. . . .is there?
Hush, Svante.
Svante says:
July 9, 2020 at 2:39 PM
Tesla, at age 63, was looking after pigeons and dodging hotel bills when it came to him. The moon does not rotate.
==============================
LMAO! And at 72 he received his last patent. . . .for a helicopter!
Tesla was a great visionary. A man of science not sycophancy.
Tesla’s moon observations may not have been entirely correct but the majority of his theory is correct. The rotation of the moon around the COG of earth is caused by gravity and tidal locking occurs by an identical force. Tesla saw what you can’t see and reject in the face of rigid body dynamics. And you do so without raising a single logical argument opposing the concept.
I appreciate Tesla’s concept the moon settling into a tidal locked position after ‘oscillating’. Makes perfect sense.
The moon rolls toward tidal locking and overshooting it like a pendulum.
Its has a nice similarity to varied gravitational force exerted as a result of an elliptical orbit, better known as physical longitude libration.
Tesla was an amazing guy. Its pretty shameful that throwing ad hominems at a brilliant dead guy is the best argument you can come up with for your position.
Yeah right, astronomy just haven’t advanced enough to catch up with him in the last 100 years (the moon landing was a hoax).
It’s just a really simple distinction at a very fundamental level. You either get it or you don’t. No need for all this drama.
Astronomy will be fixed soon, the moon is a part of Mars:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/07/trump-moon-is-part-of-mars-tweet-nasa
Now we have the Guardian and everybody else who flunked their grammar classes not realizing that the moon was a part of ”the much bigger things we are doing” which was the subject of the sentence. The moon (which we already did) and Mars were two examples of that.
Construction was a little awkward but only an illiterate person would mistake his meaning. FYI, in awkward construction modifiers and examples are of the subject of the sentence as any other interpretation is even more awkward because you shouldn’t it interpret it as another sentence within a sentence. Simple stuff only messed up by simple minds. Like taking independent moon rotation so seriously that you can’t see the awkwardness of disregarding cause and effect in characterizing what the moon is doing.
Its like fervently believing in a multi-layered greenhouse effect while ignoring the most basic thermodynamics of the transfer of heat through a gaseous medium.
No need for all this drama, and random, unconnected posts.
posted this near beginning, not realizing where I was posting:
robthere is a great new documentary film by Michael Moore called Planet of the Humans.
It has been banned by youtube, the eco-weenies are having a hysterical reaction over it. Dont know why. It reveals what we all need to know, that we are so stuck in our belief systems that green energy will save us that we are deluded to the truth that we are seriously overly populated and that our needs are far too great to be sustainable.
The movie also reveals the truth that green energy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and cannot meet the demands of our power grids. So greenies have given their blessing to natural gas and biomass, which replaces coal with trees. Thats right, the greenies think its OK to burn trees because they are sustainable!!!
Duh!! If every tree in the US was burned for one year it would barely meet the needs of the US power demand.
https://energynow.ca/2020/04/watch-michael-moores-much-needed-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-looks-at-the-ugly-truths-about-renewable-energy/
Yes, if new technology is not immediately perfect you must give up completely and never fix it.
Svante says: ”Yes, if new technology is not immediately perfect you must give up completely and never fix it.! ”
LMAO! Yeah dude we can just grow trees faster. ROTFLMAO!
If you say so, Svante.
global warming is really an issue. We can’t live with it?
is is an issue seriously,
there is an YT channel “Banzaara”, who is really work hard for make environment clear.
about ecosystem and it’s importance for life you can get here.
https://www.cbsepractice.in/solutions/biology-12-ncert-ecosystem-solutions-exercise/
how to work for environment? check there details first then you can think of changing world.
https://4eno.in/eligibility/how-to-prepare-for-indian-army-bharti/
Great items from you, man. I’ve take note your stuff prior to and you are simply too wonderful.
I actually like what you’ve obtained right here, certainly like what you are
saying and the way in which in which you say it.
You are making it entertaining and you still take care of
to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to read far more from you.
This is really a tremendous website.
read more
https://truth-uae.com/en/the-importance-of-business-valuation/
Nice article
https://sarkariyojanaindia.com/ganna-parchi-calendar-2021/