The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2020 was +0.54 deg. C, down slightly from the September, 2020 value of +0.57 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.33 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
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 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
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 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
2020 10 +0.54 +0.71 +0.37 +0.37 +1.10 +1.23 +0.24
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 2020 should be available within the next few days 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
Dr. Spencer, It’s well known that sea-ice exhibits a higher emissivity than water, thus one might expect that the loss of sea-ice in summer, as well as the increase in melt ponds on the surface of first year ice, would appear as colder temperatures.
Please tell us how much effect the decline in Arctic sea-ice over the satellite era will have on the MSU/AMSU trends for the Arctic, especially the LT.
swannie…”Please tell us how much effect the decline in Arctic sea-ice over the satellite era will have on the MSU/AMSU trends ”
Do you mean the loss of sea ice during the one month of summer or over the entire year where most of the year has little or no solar input. Every year there is 10 feet of ice at the North Pole in January, not exactly what I’d call a loss of ice.
Gordo, up unusually early this AM, asks:
Yes, Gordo, there’s an annual cycle in sea-ice. But, over the years of satellite measurements, there’s clear evidence of loss in Arctic sea-ice cover, which is greatest at the end of the melt season, typically during September. Even during Winter, the extent is reduced and the thickness isn’t the issue.
What’s wrong Gordo, can’t sleep because the election got you spooked?
swannie…”over the years of satellite measurements, theres clear evidence of loss in Arctic sea-ice cover…”
Too many variable in the sea ice to make an accurate estimate with a satellite. For one, the ice is always moving around, compacting and expanding. When it compacts, there are pressure ridges built up at the collision sites that are broad and over 40 feet high in places. Those ridges are everywhere and counting the volume of ice they consume would be impossible.
Also, the Transpolar Drift, which operates West to East, is constantly dumping ice into the North Atlantic. Are the satellites measuring the constant flow of icebergs out of the Arctic Ocean? They begin as broad platforms like little islands and by the time they reach the warmer North Atlantic they will have melted significantly.
The size and depth of those bergs should give an indication of how thick the ice really is.
Gordon Robertson says:
“there are pressure ridges built up at the collision sites that are broad and over 40 feet high in places. Those ridges are everywhere and counting the volume of ice they consume would be impossible.”
Wikipedia says:
CryoSat-2 has discovered 25 000 such seamounts.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo, you need to do some homework. The satellite microwave measurements are used to calculate a value called “area”. Since there’s some variation within each pixel, caused by surface variation, such open water and melt ponds, another variable called “extent” is calculated to include areas with more than 15% coverage. The resulting data over several decades indicate a clear decline in extent at the seasonal minimum. That decline also results in a major reduction in multi-year ice, that is, sea-ice which has survived one or more melt seasons.
HERE’s an animation thru 2007, a year with a sharp decline in extent. The loss of multi-year ice is quite clear and has continued in subsequent years.
BTW. “ice bergs” are the result of glaciers caving at their boundaries with the ocean, not sea-ice.
And CryoSat-2 determines the thickness by measuring the freeboard.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Every year there is 10 feet of ice at the North Pole in January”
Looks like it has dropped to six feet Gordon:
https://tinyurl.com/y3wkve9r
svante…very good, you have shown a model rendition of sea ice thickness between May and November, literally over the Arctic summer. Have you got one for November to May?
It’s from the 5th of January to 11th of January 2019.
It’s based on data from CryoSat 2, which does not provide data between May and September because there are too many melting ponds.
“CryoSat-2 was constructed by EADS Astrium, with its main instrument being built by Thales Alenia Space”, and it was launched from Baikonur.
This is what I would call a loss of ice.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
robert…what you have managed to convey is ice loss during the Arctic summer. From an unvalidated model.
That’s for both April and September. No matter how you slice and dice it Arctic sea ice is declining and its declining faster than scientists predicted.
Another consideration…sea ice typically suppresses heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere during freeze season. The record low ice extent likely contributed to the significant rise in the Artic region on this update. The refreeze has finally begun in earnest so although we’re still at record lows I would expect a decline the Artic region in the coming months. BTW…this is the 2nd warmest October on record behind 2016 for the Arctic region.
global warming is a improvment, winters are not as cold, and summers are not any hotter, sounds good to me. dr. roy, why dont you break it down by month? the growing season is longer. why not look at the big pitcure? is there nothing good about globile warming? again i will ask why do you use fake goverment numbers?
UAH is already broken down by month. They compute their own global mean temperature. Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy do not rely on “fake government numbers” nor are they publishing data fraudulently or in bad faith. Regardless I’m not understanding the relevance of your questions regarding whether low Arctic sea ice may be contaminating UAH’s estimate of the temperature in the Arctic region. Maybe you could clarify your questions?
…winters are not as cold, and summers are not any hotter…
Yep, winter nights are not as cold, and summer afternoons are not as hot as they were years ago. At least for most of the United States that’s true. Oh, there’s more rain too. But global warming, climate change, the climate crisis or what ever climate “scientists” are calling it today is a looming existential catastrophe. I call it bullshit.
steve…”the climate crisis or what ever climate scientists are calling it today is a looming existential catastrophe. I call it bullshit”.
Same with covid theory and the tests. Medical science and alarmist climate science have a lot in common.
Swanson says:
”It’s well known that sea-ice exhibits a higher emissivity than water.”
Swanson you are all twisted up. Ice has about the same emissivity as water. Sea ice though has much lower emissivity than water because its covered with snow.
Measuring temperatures to a high degree of accuracy using IR detectors is the realm of experts not amateurs.
You do realize that Swanson is an expert right?
https://tinyurl.com/y5wb6vqp
He is. One paper? One that concludes a lot more work needs to be done. Thats fine I am all for improving our ability to monitor stuff and when you can make a compelling case you usually land a job.
I wish him luck. But to begin with and mentioned in my reply to Swanson below currently the focus of this issue is in an entirely different area of study.
I am similarly working on a paper. I haven’t yet published it yet because my conclusion is the same as his – more work needs to be done. but I am a busy guy most of the time and have limited time actually coming up with a plan of work that needs to be done.
Its one thing to identify work needs to be done and another to propose how to close the gap.
Obviously it would be nice to have all the temperature records to be converging instead of diverging with each version.
Same deal with the modeling. 30 widely diverging black box models averaged together provides a prediction that only a few of the most outlier of models actually fit anybody’s temperature records and none of some. Science is supposed to converge not diverge.
Ultimately when you can’t get that convergence to happen an honest and impartial person would instead recognize that indeed the levels of uncertainty are far higher than the political narrative suggests.
The political narrative does not say exactly what the ECS is.
Neither does the science.
b hunter wrote:
Well, the rest of the scientific community which monitors Arctic sea-ice takes advantage of the difference in emissivity to calculate their area and extent measures. Of course, during the summer melt season, there’s not much snow around and melt ponds are abundant. Here’s one report on the subject.
OK. Different frequencies have far different performance on emissivities. So as you say it makes sense you could develop algorithms to determine whether water is radiating or ice is radiating using multiple frequencies.
However, it seems from a global standpoint this is a pretty minor issue compared to extrapolating temperatures horizontally across multiple environments as do the surface station approach.
So are you suggesting actually looking at what you are assuming the temperature to be is worse than not looking because by looking there is a chance you got it wrong?
None of these datasets are perfect.
”The rest of the science community” which I guess you have to a man all pouring over ice extent maps. LMAO! Their problem is different. Water is going to emit as water and so is snow and ice whether its a melt pond, ocean, ice, or snow. That’s all good.
The problem is calling melt ponds open water.
Here they are looking at ways to fix that problem. Like using frequencies that penetrate the water some distance and emit as ice from under the melt pond.
Some papers floating around on that issue. Which perhaps you have determined to be some earth shaking issue for temperature.
I suppose UAH should be aware that they might be detecting ice under melt ponds. . . .but does it matter to UAH? I kind of doubt some faint and diluted signal of ice under melt ponds has any significant impact on estimates of temperature. But indeed it could be important in identifying whether ice is surreptitiously lurking there or not.
This is a critical problem. There is an ice extent service actually using visual satellite imagery to properly identify melt ponds from open water and measure ice extent. Its apparently a tedious process that updates far less frequently than IR satellite imaging to make critical adjustments.
So it is a critical problem. But to what?
Indeed its critical for some pointy heads agonizing over every ice cube that has its life viciously exterminated for seemingly no reason. This service provides some potential relief from that agony but not much, the pointy heads keep agonizing anyway.
But that’s obviously not a reason for it being critical.
An ice free arctic has been pre-defined as less that one million square kilometers. Melt ponds aren’t going to be a big factor in such a loosely defined concept of ice free as a 1mm/km2. So thats not the reason either.
What it is critical for is as an aid to navigation where ‘reliable’ new ice charts are needed far more frequently. After all its a race for the riches of the arctic ocean, a giant gold mine for tourism in the wilderness, and a huge safety issue for those piloting the craft to enable all that.
b hunter lots of stuff, including:
He apparently doesn’t get it. The problem I suggest is the result of surface emissivity, not hidden sea-ice below the surface. The MSU/AMSU measures over a large “foot print”, thus the emissions from sea-ice, open ocean and melt ponds is aggregated within each of the foot prints over the Arctic. Since sea-ice exhibits a greater emissivity than water, less sea-ice within any foot print will register as slightly cooler brightness temperature. My hypothesis is that over the record since 1978, the obvious decline in sea-ice would appear as a cooling trend in the data and an increase in melt ponds over the remaining sea-ice would add to that effect.
I appreciate your reply.
I got your hypothesis. I am just trying to figure out how you did some work and arrived at it.
took a look at the issue and have a hard time reconciling that your hypothesis amounts to anything worth looking at.
So we have the arctic with all the territory above the arctic circle comprising less than 3% of the entire globe. https://www.livescience.com/arctic-circle.html#:~:text=That's%20slightly%20less%20than%203,%2C%20Norway%2C%20Iceland%20and%20Greenland.
Average decline of ice extent being approximate 5.66% per decade. so 3 decades would be ~17%.
So lets just assume that the readings between ice and water is off by 40%. Which is consistent with a maximum error of your study amounting to about a .25 degree error in areas that changed from ice to water.
do the math and you come up with .0014 of one degree for 3 decades affect on global mean temperature.
Please note that potential error isn’t significant. Glad to be of service.
Bill,
Nice calculation, but you have the cart before the horse.
b hunter described a simple analysis of sea-ice, to which I am replying.
First off, the problem I see regarding the influence of reduction in sea-ice cover and an increase in melt ponding on remaining ice is a seasonal situation, which I briefly analyzed in a paper presented at the 2017 AGU meeting. The effect would be most apparent during the melt season, which is roughly April thru September, so your analysis should have included only those 6 months. Secondly, the effect would include all the sea-ice area, not that defined by the extent calculation, which exhibits less decline than the calculated area.
The passive microwave data is reduced to a variable called “concentration” for each pixel in a grid pattern because the open areas and melt ponds within each pixel can not be resolved by the instruments. The “area” variable is the result of summing the concentration over all the pixels within the entire Arctic region. The “extent” is defined as that portion of the area for which the concentration is greater than 85%. There is clear evidence that the extent is declining and the area decline is greater still.
I don’t see any connection between the extent calculation you describe and the microwave emissions from sea-ice as compared with water. And, you offer no logic supporting your wild assumption that “the readings between ice and water is off by 40%”, as we are comparing actual measurements from the passive microwave instruments. You suggest that I “do the math”, when you have presented no math based on your assumption of some error value.
As the circumference of the ice pack gets smaller melt ponding should be going down not going up. Melt ponding occurs all the way to the pole every year considering its 24/7 sunlight. Where is your reference that melt ponding would be increasing?
Further I didn’t limit the analysis to summer because the numbers of concern are of climate trends, not summer ice trends.
Your stated objective is to close the climate change slope over 3 to 4 decades. Climate has 12 months and winters. You might want to check your calendar on that fact.
And oh the final point of my analysis wasn’t to contest anything at all you said. I have no significant identified problem with any of that. What I saw missing in your study was any attempt at quantifying the potential difference.
Certainly you are welcome to produce and make a case for a different analysis, but you might start with explaining why you think summers are the only season relevant to climate trends. I didn’t see any such declaration in your paper.
Further considering the objective you state in your reply to focus on summer time effects, that has nothing to do with what UAH is doing.
UAH supplies an Arctic summation each month with an anomaly rate of climb significantly higher than the globe average. (.25degC/decade) which is considerably higher than the global mean (.14degC/decade)
The inclusion of the arctic in land surface records a few years ago increased the surface record anomaly rate at the expense of reliability on longterm analysis. the arctic was previously excluded due to the lack of observation data. Then it was manufactured via computer modeling.
Like trying to measure solar activity its important to maintain the ‘same’ observation techniques warts and all. Sunspots are still ultimately counted using the same technology used by the first guys, while some sunspot monitoring services use modern technology and tend to record more sunspots due to higher resolution technologies.
Your comparison for your issue should have been confined to differences in arctic anomalies. Once thats established then its easy to see the impact on global anomalies.
But if you had been paying attention to the arctic you would know that most of the warming has occurred in the winter months, not the summer months.
Seems the whole objective of your study is to suggest why UAH and RSS diverge on a global basis, but Roy and John have been clear they know why and its been characterized as a global issue regarding satellite drift.
Considering that and looking an impacts on global anomaly makes a summer only analysis not only unscaled to climate change but also not likely to explain any significant difference between the satellite measuring methodologies.
but one never knows for sure. Surely you can dig deeper into this topic.
UAH supplies monthly arctic anomalies, compare that to monthly arctic anomalies from the other services and then come back and discuss it further.
If you don’t have that data then you are probably talking to the wrong person here. Just an auditing tip Swanson. RSS and NOAA might be who you want to talk to if you can’t get monthly arctic information from them publicly.
b hunter, I focused on the Arctic melt season because that’s where the largest decline in sea-ice extent and area has been observed. Furthermore, the use of anomalies is not unique to UAH, as that’s necessary to different seasonal variations. Recall that the various MSU/AMSU products don’t directly measure the surface emissions, they are lumped into the adsorp_tion and emission for all pressure heights thru the entire atmosphere to TOA.
At the end, you wrote:
It would appear that you didn’t read my paper from the AGU meeting. In the first section, I utilized all three groups data. The data presented in Figures 7-8 also included data from RSS and NOAA STAR groups, though only RSS for the TLT comparison in Figure 7 because NOAA STAR doesn’t produce a TLT product, only a TMT version.
I’m well aware that there are reports or a larger positive warming trend in Winter than Summer. However, I ask the question: “Why does the satellite data indicate a cooling trend over the Arctic Ocean during the Summer melt season?”. I suggest that there isn’t actually a cooling trend, instead the loss of sea-ice has contaminated the MSU/AMSU data.
I am not criticizing what you are now saying.
I was focusing more on your conclusion:
”These data have gained considerable prominence in public discussion of Earths changing climate; thus, it is imperative that any remaining questions regarding differences between these series be resolved.”
I was just responding to that which strongly implies that the narrow little area you are looking at doesn’t do anything significant.
Bottom line in a place like the arctic I would expect winters to get warmer and summers cooler because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere both increase low times and decrease high temps because 50% of sunlight is IR. The arctic is unique in having 6 months of daylight and then 6 months of darkness.
bill hunter says:
“50% of sunlight is IR”
100% of the outgoing radiation is IR.
Check out CO2:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
b hunter, Your quote is from my JTECH paper, not my later 2017 AGU paper in which I discussed the possible influence of sea-ice on the MSU/AMSU TMT products.
You also wrote:
I took my own advice and looked at my AGU paper again. Note that my band passed calculation removes the overall trend from the result, thus the basic data used to produce my Figures 7 and 8 actually show warming during both Melt and Freeze seasons. The situation is made more complex by the fact that the surface air temperatures are constrained by the presence of the sea-ice and a relatively cold ocean, as well as the high incidence of cloud cover over both.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
“50% of sunlight is IR”
100% of the outgoing radiation is IR.
—————————-
Yes indeed. Greenhouse elements co2, water, other junk
block 180 watts incoming and block about 356 watts outgoing
Its a bit messy because of surface emissivity being assumed by Trenberth to be 1.0 when it calcs a little less than .87.
So I am using it as all water elements doing it even though its laying on the ground.
You can fix it if you can determine the correct emissivities but as Swanson is agonizing over thats not all that easy to do. But that is one way to demonstrate the 1/2 IR in and full IR out as you specified.
So I don’t disagree.
Looks like Trenberth has emissivity 0.86, which diagram are you looking at?
.875 would be the calculation from Stefan-Boltzmann calculations from Trenberth, Kielh 2009 where the earth’s surface reflects 23w/m2 out of 184watts/m2 of incoming solar. No doubt primarily due to snow reflectivity, water and ice is around .9 and nothing is 1.0 which is Trenberth’s assumption of how much the earth’s surface actually emits. Lets see .875 times 396 gives 346.5w/m2. I guess Trenberth though that was far too close to the average insolation of 341.5 to let the public see.
That was even more true in the original 1997 work of the two. There it was 30w/m2 out of 198w/m2 mean surface insolation. Thats an emissivity of .85. Then he had surface radiation at 390w/m2 at 1.0 emissivity. But should be 331w/m2 based upon SB equations. Wow! In 2009 and 1997, Trenberth had back radiation at 333w/m2 and 324w/m2 respectively.
Of course if you actually measure sky temperature it comes up differently probably because of frequency selection. So I guess Trenberth actually believes .04% of the atmosphere with CO2 can warm the surface with hot molecules.
Start playing the figures where backradiation is Trenberth’s plug number (which he says it is) reduce 2009 to the 346.5 surface emission and you get 283.5 backradiation, much closer to what is measured.
A good number of people think the greenhouse effect is based upon surface emissivity rather than CO2. How that emissivity varies is the question that would need to be answered to explain climate variation.
Now I am aware that emissivity varies by temperature for some surfaces. That throws the whole thing into a huge bucket labeled future work and monitoring necessary to build a case. Much easier to ignore it and dream up some poorly described ”it must work that way” theory.
This whole thing on a global mean basis is very very poorly documented. In one and one communications with Trenberth he just ducks and weaves on the topic.
In TRENBERTH/FASULLO/KIEH 2009 you can read:
Water is about 70% of the surface, deserts are much less.
Their estimates are constrained by observations.
water emissivity is lower. i talked to trenberth and he gave me some references allegedy supporting his point. they didn’t.
you might get a high emissivity looking straight into water but at an angle reflectivity. plenty easy to get a sunburn from just reflection on water. i cant recall the other sources but they were in the mid to low 90’s. still have them someplace. Swanson’s paper also discusses emissivities lower than ice.
Again: “Similar rectification effects may occur for the back radiation to the surface, so that for KT97 the errors tend to offset”.
And he has surface absorptivity at 0.86 in fig. 1.
“A good number of people think the greenhouse effect is based upon surface emissivity rather than CO2.”
Surely not, it has nothing to do with the GHE.
“Now I am aware that emissivity varies by temperature for some surfaces.”
You never see that in any tables, and it’s surely negligible for a few degrees change.
Svante, all I said was the emissivity makes it rather messy throughout the budget when we have a good handle on what the total budget is.
Having excessive IR emissions at the surface may pump up MODTRAN if they don’t employ the correct emissivity. Does MODTRAN now employ a surface emissivity factor that one can play with?
You can play with different surfaces here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/
This is the 2nd warmest October on record and marks 17 consecutive months above the trendline. The slope of the trendline has been risen 22 consecutive months increasing by +0.011C/decade over this period to +0.1373C/decade +- 0.0066. The trendline sits at +0.3418C. The 13 month moving average is +0.52C. This is a hair short of the +0.53C value recorded in November 2016.
bdg…”The slope of the trendline has been risen 22 consecutive months ”
And for two years before that it was falling. And for about 18 years before that it was flat.
What’s your point?
Bdgwx, you aren’t going to like what happens next. Why you are concerned with noise is beyond me. We know exactly why the last “17 months” have been warm. We had primarily El Nino conditions starting in late 2018.
In case you don’t understand the El Nino situation it leads to warmer ocean temperatures which then warms the atmosphere.
This heat source has now been cut off. It took several months for the warm water to eventually cool but that now appears to be happening.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/d3-gfs-grta-daily-2020-11-01.gif
Follow the red line as that is the one that shows the ENSO effects. Even though the last El Nino ended last May the warm waters persisted across the Tropics for many months.
What happens next is the Tropics will stay cool and slowly lead to cooling over the extra-tropics. How much cooling will depend on how long the current La Nina lasts. If it lasts for 2-3 years then there’s a good chance all the recent El Nino driven warming will fade away completely. To follow this process keep an eye on SSTs.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to:2018.1/offset:-0.2/trend
You can see what happened to the previous El Nino and where we are now. The SSTs will again start to fall just like they did in 2018. I would not be surprised to see us right back down to that same 2018 low point by the summer 0f 2021.
Yes. I expect a drop below the trendline soon as well. In fact, I think there is a good chance the 13-month mean could go lower than it did in 2018. The data supports 0.4 excursions below the trendline so a dip below 0.0 could even be in the cards still. And if the coming La Nina is well timed with a VEI 6+ eruption we could go well below 0.0.
I think it is pretty certain they will fall a long way below below 2018. That year was only a weak La Nina. If the NASA model is correct, this will be the first “very strong” La Nina since 1950 (other models suggest only “strong”), so I think it a high chance we will get negative values, with an outside chance of -0.2.
And Richard will switch from finding excuses to claiming that this is “proof” that the climate has not warmed. Apparently there have not been countless periods over the last 40 years where we have not had weak “El Nino conditions” which we can use as a comparison.
The average ONI for the last 15 months is just 0.2 degrees C. See
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Hardly consistent with “We had primarily El Nino conditions starting in late 2018”, unless you are suggesting that a weak El Nino in late 2018 (peaking at 0.9 degrees in Nov 2018) and predominantly neutral conditions since is still driving our weather.
More importantly, right now, the UAH data is showing a similar 13 month average to the peak in spring 2016: by the corresponding month (Oct) of 2016, the 13 month UAH average was lower than now, yet that same 15 month preceding period in that year had an average ONI of 1.4 degrees: now that is El Nino!
Dave, the link you provided shows (El Nino) occurred for 14 of the 18 months from Oct. 2018 through March 2020.
In reality the El Nino conditions lasted from mid Sept 2018 until the first week of May 2020 but the way NOAA does the averaging allowed cool months before and after that to change the 3 month averages of the end points. That doesn’t change the actual fact that the temperature of the Nino 3.4 area was above .5 C until that early May date.
This link shows the monthly data. Notice April 2020 above .5 C. If you want to do an average you need to use the actual monthly (or weekly) data and not the ONI seasonal data.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
The effect of the last 6 months of lower Nino 3.4 temperatures is just starting to take hold. Keep and eye on the SSTs. Looking at the SH gives you more insight. As you can see we are already starting to see a drop.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2014/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2014/to:2018.1/offset:-0.2/trend
Thanks to Roy for getting this data out.
I have no questions about the integrity of UAH or of Roy or John Christy. I think they are both scientists of courage and integrity. Having said that, the data since about 2015 is far too regular in its oscillation about the red running average and I see nothing like it anywhere else on the range. It also makes no sense since the weather/climate I have experienced is nothing like it.
I would like to ask Roy if this data is retrieved directly from the satellites or whether it goes to NOAA first and is passed on to UAH.
I am asking because there is ample evidence that NOAA has fudged the surface data. Recently the head scientist was demoted for writing a letter to the government agent in charge and pretty well accusing the government of misrepresenting the science put out by NOAA. I thought he had a nerve for claiming that and that it was right to demote him. I wonder what took so long.
The argument from the tinfoil hat.
All signs clearly point to a rapidly warming world. Satellites, thermometers, sea ice, ice sheets, glaciers, plant and animal ranges, and many other proxies all point to dramatic warming.
… ARGO, AIRS, LBLRTMs, climate models, surface IR measurements, decreasing snow cover, increasing WV, sea level rise, …
robert…”All signs clearly point to a rapidly warming world.”
Signs are not science, Robert. And there is evidence, lots of it that NOAA is fudging the temperature record.
Data doesnt make sense when it doesnt fit my own point of view?
eze…”Data doesnt make sense when it doesnt fit my own point of view?”
No…data doesn’t make sense when the real data gathered from thermometers is regarded as being wrong and requiring adjustment (fudging). Also, when you have genuine reporting stations and you slash 90% of them since 1990 then synthesize data for the missing stations using a climate model.
You must be out of touch.
Gordon, I’ve heard rumors that all the election data for tomorrow’s presidential election will go to NOAA for a quality check before they are published. Can you confirm that?
Rune Valaker
Ha ha haaa. Excellent reaction.
This Robertson guy really is plain paranoid…
J.-P. D.
The POTUS has similar concerns.
rune…”Gordon, Ive heard rumors that all the election data for tomorrows presidential election will go to NOAA for a quality check before they are published. Can you confirm that?”
NASA GISS will feel neglected. Can’t confirm but I have heard the Democrats are busy falsifying ballots.
And I know – as a matter of fact – that the concept of systematic voter oppression is solely a Republican objective. Just like the orange orangutange will challange the Pennsylvania SCOTUS decision that votes can be counted until recieved three days after the election.
Gordon,
Why do you pick 2015 as a cutoff for the perceived (alarming) regularity of the data around the running average?
To me it looks like the preceding 3 or 4 years (to 2015) also have very little variance around this mean. Perhaps it’s worth considering the possibility that the 13 month running mean (as is clearly Roy’s intention in computing it) gives a pretty good description of the overall trend on a yearly basis?
Yes, it’s an at (or close to) an all time high in the instrumental record. But that’s empirical data for you.
dave…”Why do you pick 2015 as a cutoff for the perceived (alarming) regularity of the data around the running average?”
The IPCC admitted in their 2012 review that no warming had occurred over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. The UAH graph confirms that. Based on the trend following 2012, it is obvious the trend was flat for another 3 years, then suddenly the 2016 warming began.
Gordo repeats the usual denialist cherry picking of data.
If the trend calculation is started with the warm spike in 1998, continuing thru about 2015, the result would indicate only a small warming. Begin the calculation in 1999 and there’s a positive trend. Of course, Gordo the denialist would have us ignore 2016, for the same reason he wants to begin with the spike in 1998, as it adds to the positive trend over the record.
Not much of a pause in ocean heat content, where 90% of the energy goes:
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
I have no questions about the integrity of UAH or of Roy or John Christy. I think they are both scientists of courage and integrity. Having said that, the data since about 2015 is far too regular in its oscillation about the red running average and I see nothing like it anywhere else on the range. It also makes no sense since the weather/climate I have experienced is nothing like it.
Why in hell does any inteligent person imagine that the weather in their back yard is going to be the same as global climate fluctuations?
The mix of hubris and ignorance is something to behold.
There’s Gordon for you ☺
barry says:
Why in hell does any inteligent person imagine that the weather in their back yard is going to be the same as global climate fluctuations?
The mix of hubris and ignorance is something to behold.
Yeah Barry, H.L. Mencken’s hobgoblins are always over there, just under the surface and around the next corner, you’ll see, just wait!
The last few months of 2016 were all below 0.5, and included a reading below 0.3. So, unless November and December are significantly lower than October, it would appear that 2020 will be the warmest year ever.
Maybe not. UAH TLT was +0.53C in 2016. For 2020 to be higher Nov and Dec would have to come in at 0.60 each. Lower Arctic sea ice may put positive pressure on temperatures, but a looming La Nina will probably more than offset that. I’m expecting a decline in TLT temperatures for Nov and Dec. We’ll see though.
Wow! over 4000 comments on the last month report post (coming up to approx 130 per day). Way to go! I wonder, if that record can be beaten…?
Could someone just in a sentence summarize what that was all about?
The Moon is not rotating and there is no greenhouse effect, according to the resident lackwits.
Plus trolls asking others to stop trolling,
idiots calling the rest of us “idiots”
and Gish galloping “no GHE, corrupt science”.
EM,
You mean the bananas effect dont you? Bananas absorb and emit IR. Scientific fact. Or is the greenhouse effect something totally different which also has nothing at all to do with greenhouses?
I suppose bananas could be grown in greenhouses. Why not call it the bananas greenhouse effect?
It doesnt really matter what you call something that cannot be observed or described, or supported by experiment, does it?
“It’s about roughly a dozen idiots and trolls trying to pervert science to fit their false religion.”
That’s the one sentence. Some of the more interesting perversions of science, from last month:
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
And one of the funnier ones is the realization that the leading example of the GHE nonsense, the infamous “steel greenhouse”, indicates Earth should be much warmer than it is. 303 K, to be exact. Meaning CO2 must be doing a lot more cooling than we thought….
Sren F
Simply try to post a comment about Newton’s words in his Principia concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis (being, according to Newton and many other science [wo]men before and after him, the reason why it always shows the same face to us).
Typical answers:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537818
or
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-548075
*
You might say: Why the heck to you react to such comments anyway?
Answer: it’s hard to ignore people endlessly propagating their pseudoscientific narrative, because you know by experience that many people in the background start believing in such narrative when it does not get contradicted enough…
J.-P. D.
My comment that you linked to was not written in response to you posting a comment on Newton’s words. Stop making stuff up.
Pseudomod
Please stop whining, you perfectly know how deep you are involved in this Moon spin denialism!
J.-P. D.
JD gets so confused because he can’t understand his own links. Newton was the one that proved what orbital motion is. It’s the same as a ball on a string, or Moon. One side always faces the inside of the orbit. That’s pure orbital motion. If a body is orbiting AND rotating about its axis, you would see all sides of it from inside the orbit.
I’m not whining. Just correcting you, as usual.
Thanks all!
You’re welcome ☺
sren….”Could someone just in a sentence summarize what that was all about?”
Coturnix is envious that several of us on the blog enjoy posting.
No, but I do feel respect for dr. spencer, it is not easy to develop such an outstanding community of numbskulls spewing hundreds of kilobytes of gibberish every day. Is he performing some kind of sociological experiment? Who knows, maybe he does.
Brainlet minnows swimming around in a shallow pond until someone chums the water.
The moon is not rotating and Indian science proves it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s3DvJJEfBE&feature=youtu.be
"The moon is not rotating…"
…on its own axis.
bluepilled bruh.
The moon does rotate, about the Earth/moon barycenter. The motion is referred to as “revolution”, or “orbiting”. The moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass.
Just like Indian science says bruh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s3DvJJEfBE&feature=youtu.be
OK, Tyson.
TPTB says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91XTV_p9pc
comments not as funny as India science.
OK, Tyson.
Can anyone explain why there is a lag between La Nina/ El Nino ocean surface cooling/ warming in the nino 3.4 region and the lower troposphere global temperature?
I remember an explanation previously but can not find it or remember it.
AJS
Everybody speaks/writes about a 4-5 month lag between ENSO surface signals and the tropospheric reaction to them, but.. that to really explain doesn’t seem to be quite simple.
A good start in the stuff IMHO is this:
.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/20/14/3580/31327/The-Tropical-Atmospheric-El-Nino-Signal-in
J.-P. D.
Roy Spenser gave a lecture with a picture of receding glaciers showing tree stumps that were hundreds of years old when the glacier killed them. So if we only now see them then it is normal (or happened at least 7 times in Glacier National park) to have worm periods wormer then now or as worm for hundreds of years at a time. Which means that what is happening is normal even if man was not involved. Personally I suspect that if cold air moves south then warm air has to replace it so that a warmer artic may be a reflection of a colder America. Warmer there, colder here.
Indeed. It is convincing evidence that given a big enough nudge the climate can shift dramatically. The climate system is being nudged pretty hard right now.
What you describe at the end has a name. WACCy = Warm Artic Cold Continent. Anomalous warmth in the Artic can push the cold air down the latitudes. This is may be related to the hypothesized quasi resonant amplification of planetary waves and ensuing breakdown of the polar vortex. The NH is still warmer overall, but the distribution of the heat gets WACCy as a result.
R Jenson, I think you have the cause-and-effect reversed.
Satellite measurements have found that the Tropics are in surplus and the Poles are in deficit in energy annual energy flow. As a result, there’s convective energy transfer between the lower latitudes and the Arctic, as warm, moist air flows poleward and cold, dry air returns back toward the south to satisfy the deficit. This effect is strongest during the winter half of the year, when the cold, dense air masses collide with the warmer, wetter air along frontal boundaries, resulting in storms, particularly in the mid latitude regions, such as the U.S. From this simple model, one might expect to see stronger cold air masses and more intense winter storms as the tropics warm from AGW.
The official La Nina was not declared until 3+ months after La Nina like conditions were already affecting the ocean/atmosphere.
The ocean temperature in the Tropical Pacific doesn’t suddenly cool(or warm) to La Nina(El Nino) overnight………like the change of an air mass with the passage of a cold front.
It take months of gradual cooling(warming). During that time, the impact downstream on the weather grows more powerful with time as the temperature anomalies grow closer to reaching La Nina(El Nino)……. but it started months before the water temperature crossed the La Nina(El Nino) temperature threshold.
This was a huge factor in the drought out West, that increased this past Summer…….. which of course played a huge role in the wild fires.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59093/
By metmike – Oct. 29, 2020, 6:32 p.m.
“People continue to insist wrongly that this drought and the wildfires were caused by climate change………..calling them “climate fires.
Let me repeat this again.
Global warming/climate change causes the Pacific Ocean temperature to warm up. It happens in tandem with more El Nino’s, which is a warming at the surface in a key area of the Tropical Pacific.
El Nino’s cause MORE precipitation in much of the US. They help protect the US from droughts.
El Nino’s= more precip/less droughts in the US = more frequent during global warming/less frequent during global cooling
La Nina’s = Less precip/more droughts in the US =less frequent during global warming/more frequent during global cooling
We are having a La Nina right now!
The US Cornbelt has had only 1 widespread severe drought in the past 32 years, in part because of this climate change. That drought was in 2012 and was started by the La Nina drought the previous year that spread east and ended late that Summer when ENSO readings moved into the El Nino side of Neutral.
The drought before that was way back in 1988, during a strong La Nina.
Only 1 drought in 32 years in this key location………..when that location should have seen around 4 droughts based on prior historical records from the “OLD” climate.
Why is every drought, turned into headline news and from human caused climate change but having the record least number of droughts in the highest corn/bean producing area of the planet for over 3 decades………..not worth a mention?
El Nino’s help protect from droughts and there will be more El Nino’s and less droughts with global warming/climate change.
La Nina’s cause many widespread droughts in the US. There are LESS of them during global warming. The drought which we have out West right now has been caused/worsened by La Nina conditions in the Tropical Pacific. This is the complete opposite of the affect of global warming and climate change.
You can’t blame something bad on a dynamic that actually helps prevent that something bad from happening.
This can’t be from climate change.
I hope this is clear because the opposite and wrong, anti science message is being told by……….almost everybody.
Roy A Jensen says:
The problem is that those glaciers are nowhere near equilibrium. The have great thermal inertia and will continue to recede for decades or centuries even if global warming stopped now.
S,
A glacier is a river of ice. Rivers flood, dry up, change course. No equilibrium. The Antarctic was ice free. No equilibrium.
swenson…”A glacier is a river of ice. Rivers flood, dry up, change course. No equilibrium. The Antarctic was ice free. No equilibrium.”
A glacier is also dependent on precipitation at its source. Variations in precipitation can explain glacier recession. Precipitation also affects deserts but alarmists consider that as normal.
Yes.
S,
Glad you agree with reality. Its a change.
Something like 20% of all glaciers are growing because of increased precipitation. The rest are shrinking.
You got a source for that Nate?
I mean Svnate! Ooops Svante
Here: https://tinyurl.com/ybu6hta8
Click on Record and find glaciers on the right.
Twenty random samples should give you the picture.
I looked at your link Svante and only found 8 glaciers listed with records ending in 1994 or 1997 and one atg 2010.
Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place
There are 454 glaciers there.
Thanks found it. I flipped through about 30 of them and noticed current shortening of the glaciers are almost all decelerating particularly since the 1930’s.
A good number show a lot of recent flattening with a few getting longer.
I found 3 that might be accelerating visually looking at the slopes but the slopes are very similar to declines found in the first half of the 20th century.
Biggest problem I saw in the 30 I looked at randomly was no data beyond 2010 and some haven’t been updated since 1994. Why the heck is that? Is this an abandoned database?
Definitely not an impressive database for accelerating CO2 emissions. Looks more like an LIA recovery with a gently decreasing rate of decline. No wonder we don’t hear much about glaciers anymore. I was interested in seeing if Qori Kalis, the equatorial glacier, that Dr. Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State, and NAS claimed was going to disappear about 5 years.
The prediction was made 13 years ago and I have been monitoring its length by satellite imagery as it hasn’t shortened in any substantial way since the Thompson prediction. But it isn’t even listed.
Yes it was a one off copy and it’s old.
I’m sure you can find better data if you spend a little time searching.
The skeptic community has too much trouble getting any funding for something that isn’t going to help the case of climate change alarmism. Politics tends to cause the talented to find new avenues for doing their work, leaving the few old guys around that do it just for the love of it.
I could get into that as I am still working but my direction of work is in a different area.
I’m sure there there are plenty of funds you could apply to if you want to research. The data is available for download no doubt, had you not been so busy doubting it here.
Nope, just had a slow month because of meeting cancellations, but thats coming to an end now as virtual meeting replacements have been put in place. Been already cutting my time here down to less than an hour.
roy jensen…”Which means that what is happening is normal even if man was not involved”.
The point is that normal causes for our current condition will not be investigated as a whole because the funding for such research is aimed solely at the catastrophic theories related to anthropogenic warming.
The current La Nina NINO3.4 SST is already below -1.5C, and may likely hit -2.5C at its lowest point early next year. It could even rival the 1974~1976 La Nina cycle which was the strongest on record.
Global SST are falling globally, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, and the North Atlantic is also cooling:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
The Northern Hemisphere will be brutally cold this winter and likely next winter, too.
Given the above, UAH 6.0 will rapidly start falling from next month and will likely hit -0.2C~-0.3C by around April of next year.
Once the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles and global temp trends start falling for 30 years, CAGW wackos will have some explaining to do…
Regardless, the insane CAGW dire predictions are completely devoid from reality.
It take typically around three years between el nino peak and la nina trough, we are only one year in so we have two years to go before any getting conclusions
Meanwhile you can relax and maybe kill time by endless arguing about moon spin
eben…”Meanwhile you can relax and maybe kill time by endless arguing about moon spin”
This is an important discussion. It reveals the inability of alarmists to observe reality rather than appealing to authority. Unfortunately, you have joined them on Moon orbital properties and we may have to evict you from the Skeptical Society.
The satellites have been hacked to stop Trump’s re-election by showing more warming.
BTW. I have another new way to prove the moon is spinning that nobody else brought up.
it goes like this
The planetary body can have stable spin only about one single axes , that’s basic fizzix.
now spin the moon about axes in the direction of the orbiting motion , represented as an arrow – int the direction of the motion (called Y axes), the axes / arrow will now point in the same spot in the sky as it goes through the orbit, also it will show all faces to the earth, got the picture ?
now simply stop that spin , the moon has now no spin on any axes and as it orbits it still points in the same point in the sky ,
That is a zero spin orbit about any axes and shows all the faces to the earth as it orbits.
now , spin the moon again but 90 degrees off as if rolling on the surface (called X axes), the moon will now still show all faces to the earth except in one condition which is when the orbit takes the same time as the spin rotation in which case it will keep showing only one same face to the earth you can connect it with a string to the earth and everything checks out.
https://vibralign.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/XYZ-4.png
The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis. The motion is known as “orbiting”…you may have heard of it before. Orbital motion (without axial rotation) involves the same side of the object continuously facing towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. Axial rotation is then separate to that motion.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis. The moon only orbits.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
So far DREMT only demonstrated he himself cannot distinguish orbiting from spinning and that they are two different kinds of motion
No, I understand that they are two different kinds of motion, in fact that is what I was trying to explain to you.
The difference between us is in how we each describe orbital motion. I see it as motion in which the same side of the object is always facing towards the center of the orbit. You see it as motion in which the same side of the object is always facing towards the same distant star.
Axial rotation is then the spin of the object about its own axis, distinct from how we each define orbital motion.
Try watching the video I linked to further down-thread.
Eben
I guess now you understand what I mean…
J.-P. D.
eben…”in one condition which is when the orbit takes the same time as the spin rotation in which case it will keep showing only one same face to the earth you can connect it with a string to the earth and everything checks out”.
Try it. Take two coins, one stationary representing the Earth, and the other moving and representing the Moon. Now try to complete one rotation while keep a marked face on the moving coin always pointing at the centre of the stationary coin and at the same time, rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees.
Impossible. NASA thinks it is, however. You need to distinguish between a though experiment as you have just visualized and the reality.
“Orbital motion (without axial rotation) involves the same side of the object continuously facing towards the center of the orbit”
Both Newton and Feynman sat up in their grave/tomb and screamed ‘Bullshit!’, or an Elizabethan equivalent.
Just stop posting disinformation!
So far nobody has has disputed anything I said didnt even try
Both DREMT and GR put out a word salad where they use words rotation orbit and spin as it it was all one thing.
The movie DREMT posted is made by a village idiot who debunks himself right on his own video, he is spinning his paper moon by his finger and saying see it looks like I have to spin it with my fingers to make the same side face the earth – but it is not spinning.
Look at what the moon is doing when it is on the apparatus, and he is saying "this is normal orbital motion". It is revolving about the Earth, in one smooth motion, with the same face always pointing towards the Earth as it moves. This is "orbital motion without axial rotation". When you add in axial rotation, so that the moon now orbits and rotates on its own axis, you see all sides of the moon from the Earth.
Its as if he has never seen the many rebuttals of his claims.
First of course by Newton, 300 y ago, as Binny quoted.
So intellectually dishonest!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548221
Some geniuses seem to think that Arctic sea ice loss only happens during at best one summer month.
So let us split the record into single months, here for ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fBLALblvCsBn5UgKkSGOvl63ctAYPhbB/view
As we can see, none of the months shows any sea ice increase, and so are the linear estimates: all negative.
Lowest trend in October: -0.85 +- 0.07 Mkm^2 / decade
Highest trend in May: -0.37 +- 0.03 Mkm^2 / decade
The picture for the Antarctic of course shows totally different.
J.-P. D.
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
binny…”As we can see, none of the months shows any sea ice increase, and so are the linear estimates: all negative.”
Put your math and graphs in a dark place and LOOK!!!! For most of the winter, the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice up to 10 feet thick, from the North Shore of Canada right across to Siberia. For natural reasons, the North Pole, right in the middle of the chaotic ice flows, tends to warm at times in winter,
There is a reason for that which seems to have escaped you. For well over half of the Arctic year there is little or not solar input.
Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to measure sea ice extent. The ice is in constant motion and when large sheets collide they form pressure barriers which push the ice 40 feet or more vertically. Arctic ice on the AO are riddled with such barriers and it is impossible to estimate the area they involve. In other words, there is ice that satellites cannot estimate…lots of it.
Also, at the eastern end of the Arctic Ocean, ice is constantly dumped into the Atlantic.
Gordo repeats his denialist rant. HERE’s my previous reply.
And then historically, before satellites it was measured by where sailing ships could go and not go. At 15% sea ice extent, it’s not good for sailing a ship up there.
Eben
” … except in one condition which is when the orbit takes the same time as the spin rotation in which case it will keep showing only one same face to the earth you can connect it with a string to the earth and everything checks out. ”
Good grief… You are terribly optimistic!
Your idea sounds pretty good, but what you probably didn’t anticipate is that none of the usual suspects (I mean the ‘ball-on-a-string’ clan) will ever believe you on the base of what you wrote.
The only way IMHO is a simulation per software, using three coordinate systems (heliocentric, geocentric and selenocentric), and to compute second by second, using coordinate transformation matrices, the heliocentric trajectories of an observer on Earth and of one of the retroreflectors on the Moon.
You do the simulation twice: one without Moon spin, and one using the known spin of about 4.62 m/sec, and compare the output after 14 days…
J.-P. D.
This might help you understand. Who knows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
Pseudomod
There is nothing to understand in the video, excepted the fact that it is a dumb, trivial, misinterpreting view of the reality.
The Moon does NOT AT ALL turn around us like shown in the video!
Due to
– the different planes of Earth’s and Moon’s orbits around the Sun resp. the Earth
– the different inclination of the axes passing thru their poles
– their differing speeds on their respective orbits
– their differing rotation speeds
the exact movements of the observing point on Earth and the observed point on the Moon in the common, heliocentric coordinate system are much more complex than you think.
55 years ago, I was an ace in 3-dimensional trigonometry and analytical geometry; unfortunately, all that went lost because I never used it in any later professional context.
Otherwise I would have written that small piece of software long time ago.
What about YOU doing that instead?
What about learning C++ or Python, and how to implement orbits and coordinate transformation?
J.-P. D.
JD, you always toss out facts that prove you wrong. You reject reality. You can’t learn. You can’t construct proper English sentences, even with your endless “blah-blah”.
Are you related to Norman?
It’s simplified, because they are making a simple point.
The video takes you through three scenarios.
Firstly, an object rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
Secondly, as per our moon, an object not rotating on its own axis, orbiting only.
Thirdly, an object rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
Pay attention to where he is demonstrating “normal orbital motion”. By this he means, “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You’ll get there.
Binny,
So you have forgotten all your 3D trig and analytical geometry? Pity.
Mind you, you dont need them to understand Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton found that observations of the Moons movement supported his initial speculation. No angels needed to push the Moon in its elliptical orbit. Just one force. Gravity.
A large perpetually falling object. We mostly only ever see the bottom of it, because we are underneath. We see a little more, both in latitude and longitude, by getting out of its line of direct descent. Libration, which makes it appear that some mysterious force is rocking the moon from side to side, and up and down, is just our viewpoint changing.
Flynnson
As usual: dumb stuff lacking any relation to what Newton himself wrote in his Principia. Book 3, Prop. XVII, Theorem XV.
You simply prefer to ignore what doesn’t fit to your own narrative.
How poor…
J.-P. D.
No JD, it is YOU that simply prefers “to ignore what doesn’t fit to your own narrative”.
And trying to “appeal to authority” by mentioning Newton, who you don’t understand, clearly reveals the shallowness of your tactics.
Newton was the first to clearly identify the effect gravity had on an orbiting body. If the body has only pure orbital motion, no axial rotation, then one side always faces the center of the orbit. That’s the same motion as a ball on a string, which you don’t like because it “doesn’t fit to your own narrative”. The motion of a ball on a string is the same orbital motion as Moon.
You pretend to know the issues, but you’re only fooling yourself and a few of your fellow cult members. You’re an exact duplicate of Norman–you know nothing about the science, are addicted to your keyboard, and search for things on the Web that you believe supports your beliefs, but can’t understand what you find. Then you lash out at others, as if your ignorance was their fault!
Like Norman, and others of your cult, you’re a complete fraud.
ClintR
” Newton was the first to clearly identify the effect gravity had on an orbiting body. ”
Correct.
” If the body has only pure orbital motion, no axial rotation, then one side always faces the center of the orbit. ”
Wrong.
Never did Newton write that anywhere. That is your own invention.
I think I’ll now follow Mark Whapples’ invisible wish, and will stop discussing this Moon rotation problem on Roy Spencer’s newest thread.
J.-P. D.
Binny is confused again.
He has apparently invented some new physics, abandoning Newton. Maybe Binny still believes that some supernatural forces propel the Moon around the Earth.
Nope. Just gravity, as expressed in Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation.
Just perpetual falling. Satellites fall as well. The Earth falls towards the sun, but moves far enough along its orbit as it does, that it never falls into it.
How did the Earth achieve its initial velocity? Why does it spin on its axis at the rate and inclination it does? Why are alarmist donkeys so intent on denying reality?
I dont know. Does anybody?
Wrong again, JD.
Newton’s work proved that orbital motion would keep one side of the body facing the center of the orbit if the body were NOT rotating about its axis. That’s the motion of Moon, orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis. That’s the motion of a ball on a string.
Cassini got it wrong, and it never got corrected. Idiots just continue to cling to the nonsense.
And you won’t stop commenting about Moon. Like Norman, you can never do what you claim you will do, because of your addiction.
“Newtons work proved that orbital motion would keep one side of the body facing the center of the orbit if the body were NOT rotating about its axis. ”
Idiot trolls making up their own ‘facts’ again.
Lets see Newtons ‘work’ on this.
The force of a ball on a string is applied at the point of contact, ie the point on the surface of the ball where the string touches..
The force of gravity on a moon is applied to every point on the moon. To a first approximation, that force can be treated as being applied at the center.
A force applied off-center can cause a torque to an object.
A force applied at the center cannot cause a torque.
A string DOES force the same face toward the center.
Gravity DOES NOT force the same face toward the center.
These are simply facts. This means that “a ball on a string” is a weak analogy for orbits. A ball on string behaves fundamentally differently than a moon. A ball on a string will never be able to accurately, full describe how gravity causes orbits.
This does not settle the “spinner” vs “non-spinner” debate. But it does say that “appeal to analogy” is insufficient.
That’s a lot of your usual “blah-blah”, Tim. And it’s all in a failed effort to save your perverted cult. The ball on a string is NOT rotating about its axis. The ball is only orbiting. It’s the same motion as Moon — orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis.
The issue was settled back with Newton. It has not been corrected because responsible scientists know it has no value. To land on Moon, you don’t need to take into account something that isn’t happening. Moon is only orbiting.
The issue hangs on within the cult because they fear reality. In fact, they have imagined a huge amount of “tidal locking” nonsense to support the issue. They will cling to their cult beliefs until the last drop of the purple koolaid.
“The issue was settled back with Newton. It has not been corrected because”
Newton was correct then. He stated clearly that the “Moon revolves on its own axis”.
Tim Folkerts
You are too intelligent for this group. They are mindless contrarians and will oppose established truth regardless of any evidence proving them wrong or any intelligent logical thought. I always like to read your posts. It is sad that some people cannot be reached. Three posters come to mind.
That’s right Norman, I forgot Tim was one of the “holy gurus” of your cult.
How many ice cubes will you need to heat your house this winter? According to Tim, it only takes 4 ice cubes to boil water.
(What a bunch of idiots!)
ClintR
I believe you are the only one who attributes anyone to the idea that 4 ice cubes will boil water. You have attributed it to me, Tim Folkerts and I believe Bindidon. Not one of us has remotely suggested this at anytime. Like I have stated you are not very smart and you certainly do not possess logical thinking ability.
The claim made (based upon all established physics) is that energy from a cold object can be absorbed by a hotter object. If the two objects are the same material then the hotter object will absorb the energy from the colder one.
From that statement it is not logical or rational to assume this means that ice cubes can boil water. I really do not know how you come to that conclusion based upon the actual physics.
Norman, are you denying the “great science” from your cult hero? Two ice cubes are over 90F hotter than one ice cube!
How dare you!
Not only are you an idiot and a troll, but you don’t even make a good cult follower. You’re a loser at every thing.
ClintR
Again. Do you have a link to a previous post that made any claim that ice cubes will cause a temperature increase.
All I see is an ignorant poster with no logical thought process attempting to act smart but shows only a very low comprehension of any physics.
If you have 4 ice cubes at the same temperature, the total amount of energy emitted by them will be 4 times greater but that in NO WAY would mean that the energy is somehow increasing the temperature. I really do not follow your thought process on this point. It seems really stupid and childish and no one mad such a claim. If you believe (falsely) that Tim Folkerts has made such a claim then link to such a post.
You are the same irrational poster that believes that scientists think adding water at the same temperature will double the temperature. It is correct the energy is doubled but at the same time the mass is doubled so nothing changes. I have already attempted reasoning this out with you. I can never grasp just how ignorant, illogical and childish your thought process is. I just get reminded when you post again.
Norman, I’m really enjoying your denial. It reminds me of rats leaving a sinking ship.
Are you denying the discussions about “flux adding” back on the September Update? Are you denying that your “Exalted Guru Maximus” (or whatever your cult calls him) claimed that ice would add to sunshine? He even gave several examples. You like doing searches. Are you telling me you can’t find the comments?
Riiiiiiiiight.
Hope you can swim really good. You’re a long way from shore….
ClintR
No I am not in denial. Just amazed how ignorant and illogical you are.
You can’t understand what is being discussed. You fly off on some tangent that no one is talking about and make illogical points from your incredible ignorance.
Yes fluxes add, that is a factual statement. No it does not mean ice cubes will boil water. Your connections are most bizarre and irrational.
Yes Tim Folkerts is correct. You are not. You can’t understand what he says. Most people with logical thought process are able to follow the logic. You fail at that.
Maybe this will help but it probably will not. Your strange mind will understand what I am saying in an illogical manner and come up with some strange conclusion that I am not saying.
If you have a heat lamp heating an object in a cold frigid still Arctic air the object will reach a certain temparature. Now if you surround that object with walls adding IR to the object along with the heat lame the object will get warmer than it was in the frigid air. (Tim Folkerts eliminated the other heat transfer mechanisms to simplify like conduction or convection). That would be like the ice warming the surface with sunlight. Or you could have the warmer walls and no lamp. The object will reach a steady-state temperature with the surrounding walls much above the outside temperature. Now if you turn a heat lamp on towards the object it will get warmer. It is really simple logic for most. I think most do not realize how difficult logical thought is for you.
Is Norman running from the nonsense, or still trying to cling to it?
He doesn’t know himself….
ClintR
I am actually being a logical rational thinker that understands physics. Maybe you should try it for a change.
As I predicted, you are not smart enough to understand what I posted. You seem unable to logically process ideas. You seem to read a snippet, don’t grasp what you read then reply with a stupid childlike comment.
Norman, here are a few samples of what you idiots believe:
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Don’t blame others for your stupidity.
OK, Well here are a few samples of what Clint and the TEAM believe:
The Earth really is Flat
Harry Potter wands really work
Bigfoot, 2024!
Dems eat Repub babies
We can play this silly game all day.
I provide real examples of the nonsense idiots believe.
Troll Nate makes up more nonsense, to pervert reality.
And, so it goes….
ClintR
Once again you show you are not a smart person and your mind is devoid of logical processing ability. I am not sure Contrarian is the correct word for you mental process. I believe irrational would be a closer fit.
You have a list of your own created nonsense that you claim rational people are saying. The truth is you are not logical enough to understand what intelligent people are actually talking about. Your list is a product of how your irrational mind views valid science.
Strange indeed.
Norman, you can’t have it both ways. You either deny the nonsense, or you own up to it. You can’t swallow crap and then try to deny you didn’t.
Grow up.
ClintR
You once again prove you are not logical but also quite predictable.
You again respond in a childlike fashion and then retort for me to “grow up”. Odd thing to do, post in childish fashion then ask for an intelligent rational adult to “grow up”.
I guess if you post some things you think it has value. Your words are basically illogical and irrational. Not sure what drives you, it is difficult to determine the drives of irrational and illogical people. Science is not part of your equation.
Well Norman, if you believe you can respond as an adult, then tell us which of the following cult beliefs you either support or disavow?
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Let’s see if you can perform as a responsible adult.
binny…”There is nothing to understand in the video, excepted the fact that it is a dumb, trivial, misinterpreting view of the reality”.
No, Binny, what it reveals is your utter inability to observe reality and the frustration you feel when reality contradicts your preconceived notions.
See the bold emphasised paragraph above…
The ClintR/DRsEMT sockpuppet troll shows it’s colors again:
Time 7:01pm – ClintR says: ***
Time 7:03pm – Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: ***
Keep stalking us, E. Swanson.
There’s always a chance you might learn something.
This might also help you understand…from 1:54 onwards if you want to avoid the preamble:
https://youtu.be/6s3DvJJEfBE
DREMT
Please, please let us stop polluting this new thread.
I’ll answer at the bottom of the previous one.
J.-P. D.
This thread has been ‘polluted’ already. The Spinners broached the subject yet again, so now we’re discussing it. You may as well answer here.
Sorry, no.
OK then.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-548522
So he links to his comment anyway, thus continuing to ‘pollute the thread’.
Look the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX
The first animation shows what the moon looks like if it was not rotating on its own axis (0:06 to 0:24) That’s called translation.
The second animation shows the moon rotating 8 times on its axis per one orbit.
The last animation slows the rotation from 8 times on its axis per one orbit to one time on its axis per one orbit, which the tin hat crowd calls an “illusion”. They can’t understand translational movement, nor do they understand the inertial reference frame.
When one small group claims only they know the truth, it’s usually the sign of a cult.
The first animation is not orbital motion without axial rotation. The motion shown in the first animation is discussed in both videos I linked to.
Orbital motion without axial rotation is motion in which the same side of the object is oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout.
In the first animation, that moon is exhibiting translation. It is not rotating on its axis at all. Learn some physics, and quit making up your own definitions.
I have linked to my definition of revolution, further up-thread. You need to find a link which supports your definition of it.
I do not need to see a definition of translation. We are talking about orbital motion, and axial rotation.
An orbit is simply a path. All three of the animations show the moon orbiting along a path. In the first animation the moon is simply translating. I can’t help it if you don’t get simple kinematics.
The animation makes the same mistakes.
But, it’s actually really easy. If the same side always faces the center of the orbit, the object is NOT rotating about its axis.
“I have linked to my definition of revolution, further up-thread. You need to find a link which supports your definition of it.”
As if that hasnt been done 47 times before!
So dishonest!
“Rotation usually refers to something rotating on its axis.
Revolution usually refers to something orbiting something else (like Earth around the Sun).
Both terms have specific uses and meanings in science and mathematics.”
If one reads the whole damn article, it is clear that DREMT has grossly misrepresented it.
No surprise.
“An orbit is simply a path.”
An orbit is not “simply a path”. The orientation of the moon is included. You “Spinners” see orbiting as motion in which the same face of the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. There you go, now you understand your own argument.
“Non-Spinners” see orbiting as motion in which the same face of the object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout. Rotation about an external axis, in other words.
The only difference is, “Non-Spinners” can actually support their definition with direct references that specifically describe orbiting as a rotation about an external axis. The best “Spinners” can come up with is vague definitions that an orbit is “just a path” or “just a trajectory” and then couple that with kinematic references that do not mention “orbiting” or “revolution” anywhere.
“An orbit is not ‘simply a path’. The orientation of the moon is included.”
Declaration without evidence.
Show us any source that claims ‘orientation’ is included in ‘orbit’.
Once again:
“In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object”
No rotation is specified in trajectory.
If you have a definition of trajectory please show it.
The idea that orientation is specified for any orbit is simply invented by you guys.
It is falsified by
a. No mention of orientation in any definitions of ORBIT
b. Planets have many different relationships between their ORBITAL motions and their orientational motions (spin).
c. The Moon’s orientation does stay aligned with its orbital path.
‘does NOT stay aligned’
Nate says:
The idea that orientation is specified for any orbit is simply invented by you guys.
It is falsified by
a. No mention of orientation in any definitions of ORBIT
b. Planets have many different relationships between their ORBITAL motions and their orientational motions (spin).
c. The Moons orientation does stay aligned with its orbital path.
———————————–
Nate you need some kind of reference that proves that nonsense you are posting amount to a hill of beans.
I mean who are we to believe? You or Isaac Newton?
Clint,
The animation makes no mistakes. You just don’t understand simple kinematic concepts like translation.
Look at the following animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is exhibiting translational motion. All rotation about its own axis has ceased. The moon on the left is rotating once on its own axis per every one orbit, which is why the same face presents itself to the center of orbit.
These simple kinematic concepts sometimes confuse the simple minded.
“that proves that nonsense”
Which part is nonsense Bill, and why?
Lets just put this idea
“An orbit is not ‘simply a path’.”
to bed once and for all:
“Orbit – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org wiki Orbit
In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=trajectory+definition&oq=trajectory+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.6324j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“trajectory
noun
1.
the path followed by a projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces.”
SGW, another simple kinematic concept is rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis keeps the same face oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves around it. The moon on the left in your gif is an example of an object rotating about an external axis. Hence the moon on the right in your gif is an example of an object rotating about an external axis in the counter-clockwise direction whilst rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per orbit.
I use the word “orbit” because “orbit” is another word for a rotation about an external axis.
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 axes (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.”
“I use the word ‘orbit’ because ‘orbit’ is another word for a rotation about an external axis.”
False. Hasty generalization.
‘a rotation about an external axis’ is simply one possible orbit.
Like saying since orbits are elliptical, and a circle is an ellipse, then all orbits are circular. And of course they are not.
Nate,
Per NASA:
“An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.”
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
A trajectory is a path as well.
Nate,
Never mind. The issue was with DREMT, not you.
SGW, as I said, an orbit is not simply a path. Obviously, it is a path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included, too.
For instance, your own argument for what an orbit is includes orientation! You think an orbit involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. Hence you think the moon on the right, in your gif, is orbiting only, and not rotating on its own axis. If your own internal definition of orbit did not include orientation, then you would not be able to say which one of the two objects in your gif is or is not rotating on its own axis!
“simply a path. Obviously, it is a path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included, too.”
No facts/evidence to support you? Just declare them anyway!
Pathetic…
“The only difference is, ‘Non-Spinners’ can actually support their definition with direct references that specifically describe orbiting as a rotation about an external axis.”
Nope. This is demonstrably FALSE. When asked to show a legitimate definition of ORBIT that clearly states that it includes ORIENTATION, nothing is offered up.
“The best ‘Spinners’ can come up with is vague definitions that an orbit is ‘just a path’ or ‘just a trajectory’ and then couple that with kinematic references that do not mention orbiting or ‘revolution’ anywhere.”
That has clearly been addressed. See the two different definitions above of ORBIT.
So do we really to continue with the pretense that this is an ongoing controversy?
Do can we be done with this argument? And move on to genuine controversies..
#2
SGW, as I said, an orbit is not simply a path. Obviously, it is a path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included, too.
For instance, your own argument for what an orbit is includes orientation! You think an orbit involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. Hence you think the moon on the right, in your gif, is orbiting only, and not rotating on its own axis. If your own internal definition of orbit did not include orientation, then you would not be able to say which one of the two objects in your gif is or is not rotating on its own axis!
“path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included”
Nope. No evidence provided. No credit. No matter how many times you repeat it.
…crickets…
Dude good video. Found this there too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrzWzMUhQfw&t=62s
the comments are hilarious: those alien carefully adjusted the rotation speed of the moon to hide their base on the backside
Those aliens are sneaky alright!
A wooden horse firmly bolted towards the outside edge of a rotating merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, same as every other part of the platform.
Draw a small circle in chalk on another part of the platform’s floor, towards the outside edge. Is the part of the floor within the chalk circle rotating on its own axis, just because the platform is rotating? Of course not! It is just rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
Revolving about an axis external to the body (external to the horse, or the chalk circle, for example) is just another way of describing orbital motion. I linked to a definition of revolution earlier that described it in those exact terms.
“firmly bolted”
Is the Moon firmly bolted to anything?
No. So why should anyone care?
Is the Moon moving in a circle?
No. So its not even LIKE a firmly bolted thing on a MGR.
So why should anyone care?
Just stop spreading fertilizer.
They really hate the simple analogies.
Wooden horse, bolted to the floor so the idiots have no way of claiming it’s rotating about its axis.
Ball on a string.
Chalk circle.
The list goes on and on….
When the real world fails to meet your expectations, go all-in on simple analogies.
If someone says the Moon-Earth is not a rigid body, you can say its just a simple analogy!
Its brilliant because it can never be falsified!
“They really hate the simple analogies”
Yes, they hate anything that simplifies and makes the debate clear cut. All they want to do is obfuscate. They also enjoy misrepresenting our position by pretending the analogies are meant to be 100% accurate models of the moon’s motion, capturing every nuance of the orbit (including orbital eccentricity, libration etc.) when that is not their purpose.
“They also enjoy misrepresenting our position by pretending the analogies are meant to be 100% accurate models of the moon’s motion”
Lets all just stop pretending that an analogy is just as good as a model.
Where is the model, and how has it been tested?
What makes it a better model than the standard, universally applicable, one that Astronomy and Newton have used for 300 y?
If it can’t explain the details, but the standard model straightforwardly can, then what the f*ck is your model good for?
Let’s just say an analogy is not an argument.
You can say what you like, blob. The chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are all not rotating on their own axes.
And yet they are not the Moon, or a good model of it…
DREMTPY,
The challenge then is to make an argument about the Moons rotation without using analogies.
Care to take a crack at it?
Epic failure eminent.
No, blob. Now is the time that you admit you think the chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are rotating on their own axes. Because unless you’ve suddenly changed your tune, that’s what you think. And I have enough of an effort arguing about that, with various people, without even getting on to the moon.
Admit that you were wrong, previously, about the chalk circle, wooden horse, and ball on a string, and we can move on to the moon.
DREMPTY,
Nope, not going to do it, wouldn’t be prudent.
The facts of the matter are the wooden horse, chalk circle, my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating on their axes.
The proof is to hang from the rafters above the merry-go-round on a rope trapeze and grab hold of the my little pony, and see if you spin or not.
If you don’t spin, then you are correct, but if you do spin, well then I am correct.
Or you could try the basketball and baseball test I suggested earlier.
Grab a baseball and hold it without changing your grip and move it in an orbital motion around the basketball, if you can do three revolutions without separating your shoulder, you win, if you have to go to the hospital, I win.
And the rule is, a change in orientation can only occur if you rotate about your axis.
No more analogies, time for experimentation, if you won’t experiment, you lose.
If you don’t do either test, you lose.
blob, the wooden horse is rotating, but not on its own axis. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, same as every other part of the MGR. Same as the chalk circle.
Such an object that is rotating about an external axis changes its orientation, i.e. it faces through N, E, S and W…but it does so without rotating on its own axis. It is not physically possible for the wooden horse or chalk circle to rotate on their own axes, so they do not.
Thus both your examples miss the point. Feel free to declare victory if you want, I know not to waste too much time with you. You will just go on and on.
bobdroege says:
The facts of the matter are the wooden horse, chalk circle, my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating on their axes.
—————————-
Of course they do Bob. Their axes are the axle of the merry-go- round. Its taken you a long time to get there.
================
bobdroege says:
The proof is to hang from the rafters above the merry-go-round on a rope trapeze and grab hold of the my little pony, and see if you spin or not.
If you don’t spin, then you are correct, but if you do spin, well then I am correct.
—————————
Eureka! You even figured out how to prove it!
Except you didn’t allow for losing your grip as the pony jaunts away from you, those merry-go-rounds can 40 or 50 feet in diameter. Doubt you have arms that long.
So you need to first install a rotating disk on the rafters so you can hang from the same radius from the axle as the pony and you will be good to go and be able to hang on and watch the walls of the room rotate around you.
Good job Bob, there is hope for you yet!
When you ask them for a real model they just
“No, blob. Now is the time that you admit you think the chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are rotating on their own axes. ”
continue to talk incessantly about red herring analogies.
The jig is up.
"Good job Bob, there is hope for you yet!"
It’s funny how many of the "Spinners" will argue that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, or that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis…or even the chalk circle!
In fact, bdgwx beats them all, I think…he was talking about a record that is spun so fast that it actually disintegrates. He was suggesting that the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record disintegrates! So…before they are even pieces. Before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!
You can’t reason with people like that. You can’t even get on to discussing the moon if people won’t understand the simple analogies.
All "pieces" of the record are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, prior to disintegration, and not on their own axes.
“s. Before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!”
NOT ‘physically possible’?
As Inigo Montoya famously stated: I do not think that means what you think it means.
Rotation about their own axes is a description of a MOTION that is possible.
That this motion of the pieces are all synchronous, is a separate issue.
Their INDEPENDENT rotation is what not possible, until the breakup.
…and as we just saw down-thread, bdgwx also thinks the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis! No point trying to move onto discussing the moon with such people. They will never, and can never, learn.
Bill Hunter,
Took a long time to get there, no way dude, been there from the start, the moon, the chalk circle, the my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating around two axes.
That has been my position since eighth grade, when I had the same argument with my eighth grade science teacher, she at least thought about it and admitted she was wrong, and that the Moon does spin on its axis.
If any one wants to meet me under the worlds tallest arch and do the baseball basketball experiment I’m game.
The conditions:
If you can hold the baseball in a solid not moving grip and revolve it around the basketball three times keeping one face pointed towards the basketball with no damage to your arm, I’ll pay all your expenses to travel, and I’ll post on this blog that the non-spinners are right and never post on this cite again.
If you can’t then you post on this cite that you were wrong, the Moon spins on its axis through the body of the Moon, and revolves around another axis near the Earth Moon barycenter.
And there is a point above the merry go round that would always be the same distance from the pony, perhaps if you knew any trigonometry you would be able to figure that out.
Time for the non-spinner to put up or shut up.
“Took a long time to get there, no way dude, been there from the start, the moon, the chalk circle, the my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating around two axes.”
One axis, in the center of the orbit.
DREMTY
“Such an object that is rotating about an external axis changes its orientation, i.e. it faces through N, E, S and Wbut it does so without rotating on its own axis.”
That’s just impossible for something to change its orientation without rotating.
Impossible.
You have taken an impossible position.
“That’s just impossible for something to change its orientation without rotating.”
For the 1000th time, it is rotating. Just not on its own axis.
https://tinyurl.com/yyyrhzow
Odd fellow, Svante.
Handwaving, your speciality.
Could you stop trolling, please? Many thanks.
Referring to the following animation again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q
At 29 seconds into the animation, the moon makes one orbit, rotating 8 times on its own axis. For the sake of argument, lets slow it down to 1.5 rotations on its own axis per one orbit. After making one orbit at that rotation rate, let’s further slow its rotation until it reaches 0.5 rotations on its own axis per one orbit. When it slowed from 1.5 rotations to 0.5 rotations per orbit, did it stop rotating on its own axis as it reached the 1 rotation mark?? According to DREMT and ClintR, yes it did.
Returning back the merry-go-round. Let’s bolt the horse to the center of the merry-go-round. Since he is bolted firmly, there is no way he can rotate on his own axis cuz he is freakin’ bolted. (according to DREMT) Poor horse can’t spin if he tried.
(No animals were harmed in the construction of this model)
“When it slowed from 1.5 rotations to 0.5 rotations per orbit, did it stop rotating on its own axis as it reached the 1 rotation mark?? According to DREMT and ClintR, yes it did.”
What you consider to be 2 CCW rotations per CCW orbit, we consider to be 1 CCW rotation per CCW orbit. What you consider to be 1 CCW rotation per CCW orbit, we consider to be 0 rotations per CCW orbit, yes. What you consider to be 0 rotations per CCW orbit, we consider to be 1 CW rotation per CCW orbit. What you consider to be 1 CW rotation per CCW orbit, we consider to be 2 CW rotations per CCW orbit. And so on.
“Let’s bolt the horse to the center of the merry-go-round. Since he is bolted firmly, there is no way he can rotate on his own axis cuz he is freakin’ bolted. (according to DREMT) Poor horse can’t spin if he tried.”
This is missing the point. Obviously if the CM of the horse is aligned exactly with the CM of the merry-go-round, the horse is rotating on its own axis. That is why I always specify the horse is bolted towards the outside edge of the merry-go-round. With the horse towards the outside edge of the MGR, it is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely rotating about the center of the MGR. To put it into perspective, the moon is 238,900 miles away from Earth.
DREMT,
We are using a numbering system where zero means zero. You have some wacky system where the number 1 means zero. You cannot have it both ways. Something rotating 1.5 times on its own axis stops rotating when it reaches zero, NOT ONE!!!! Your system does not make mathematical sense at all, and it flies in the face of kinematics (An object in an orbit that slows down to zero rotations on its own axis per orbit is translating.)
How can an object in orbit rotating 1.000000001 times on its own axis somehow slow down by 0.000000001 and is considered to be stopped rotating??? It stops rotating when it reached ZERO. That’s how the number system works. You are in some crazy parallel universe.
You offer no explanation. You just repeat your mantra.
Concerning the horse. You said, “It is not physically possible for the wooden horse to rotate on its own axis, since it is securely bolted to the floor.” Which means if it is bolted to the floor at the center of the merry-go-round, it cannot rotate on its own axis. You cannot have it both ways.
You are so messed up its unbelievable! Hilarious.
“You offer no explanation. You just repeat your mantra.”
I have explained it in hundreds of comments. I have linked to videos explaining it. I have discussed it with people that have generated countless gifs to illustrate the motions to anybody reading. You simply choose to either play dumb, or be dumb. Not my problem, either way.
The horse can rotate on its own axis when located in the center of the merry-go-round, because then its center of mass is aligned with the center of mass of the platform that is rotating it. It’s not exactly difficult to understand. The whole “physically cannot rotate on its own axis because it is bolted down” only becomes relevant when the two centers of mass do not align. It’s not just the fact that it is bolted down that is important, it is a combination of its location, and the fact that it is bolted down.
DREMPTY,
Repetition does not imply correctness.
““That’s just impossible for something to change its orientation without rotating.”
For the 1000th time, it is rotating. Just not on its own axis.”
A thousand times wrong is still wrong.
Two axes is correct.
The wooden horse, chalk circle and ball on a string are all rotating about an axis that is external to them. They are not rotating on their own axes.
DREMT,
Let me rephrase. “Your explanations make no sense mathematically”. A system of measurement has to be consistent. You cannot measure a a body that is rotating 1.5 times on its own axis per orbit, then as its rate of rotation is reduced to 0.5 times on its own axis per orbit, turn around and say the object stopped rotating on its own axis when as it reached the “1” rotation mark. That is just plain nonsensical. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face. It’s all nonsense.
Well, I can assure you that there are people on your side of the argument that do understand it. So perhaps you need to try a bit harder.
I admire your ability to post nonsense to the viewing public, not worrying about how foolish you appear. Congrats.
When do kids learn about the number line? Elementary school?
OK, SGW.
“Since he is bolted firmly, there is no way he can rotate on his own axis cuz he is freakin’ bolted. (according to DREMT) Poor horse can’t spin if he tried.”
Good point SGW. Shows the stupidity of their ‘impossible’ argument.
I tried to make this point earlier, rotation about own axis is a MOTION that is possible as you show here.
Whats impossible for a bolted object is INDEPENDENT rotation.
And of course irrelevant to the Moon.
“For the 1000th time, it is rotating. Just not on its own axis.”
The ‘it is impossible for bolted things to rotate on their own axis’ just doesnt work to FALSIFY the Moons axial rotation. As shown above, it is not impossible. Only INDEPENDENT rotation is impossible
Thus where is the proof?
The Moon isnt bolted, so even INDEPENDENT rotation on its axis is possible for the Moon.
ORBIT is DEFINED as a trajectory of an object around the barycenter, and thats exactly what it is, see above.
Then to explain the Moons rotation REQUIRES it to be both orbiting AND rotating on its axis thru its CM.
You simply have not proven this to be incorrect.
Continuing to declare it, without evidence, just doesnt cut it.
So you put an eye-bolt in the rafters above the center of the carousel.
String a rope through the eyebolt, and attach the ends of the rope to each of your feet. The rope is long enough that you will be hanging over one of the carousels ponies, such that you can grab the handles sticking out of each ear.
The carousel start turning.
The spinner hypothesis is that the rope will twist up like the string on a yo-yo.
The null hypothesis is that the rope will not twist up.
Do the experiment.
Spinner take all.
blob proves that the merry-go-round is rotating, and hence the wooden horse is rotating (about an axis in the center of the MGR, not on its own axis).
Well done, blob. You proved what I already agreed with.
DREMPTY,
If you were as smart as a bag of marbles, you would have noticed that I didn’t prove anything, I proposed an experiment.
So, in your prediction, what happens to the rope, does it twist up or not?
You already said: “The spinner hypothesis is that the rope will twist up like the string on a yo-yo”.
Is that what you think will happen?
Proof that the horse on the merry-go-round is spinning on its axis because it is linked to something, the rope, that is spinning on its axis.
Well OK then,
Or did you have something else in mind?
As I said, it proves only that the merry-go-round is rotating, and that the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
Nate says:
The ‘it is impossible for bolted things to rotate on their own axis’ just doesnt work to FALSIFY the Moons axial rotation. As shown above, it is not impossible. Only INDEPENDENT rotation is impossible
Thus where is the proof?
The Moon isnt bolted, so even INDEPENDENT rotation on its axis is possible for the Moon.
=================================
You are so servile Nate. Are you in denial that the moon faces the earth’s cog because of the pull of that cog?
You are simply being servile to preferred definitions and selective symbolism. The moon is not rotating around its own center of gravity as there is no force to make it do that.
I came into this forum having no idea the answer was DREMT came up with a convincing science paper for his case and all you do is play with symbols and words.
So I declared DREMT the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case for his position.
“The moon is not rotating around its own center of gravity as there is no force to make it do that.”
Moon doesn’t need a force to do that, moon needs a force to stop that. DREMT has no science case for DREMT’s backwards position that the universe rotates around the nonrotating on its own axis moon.
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
“So I declared DREMT the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case for his position.”
I asked you guys for the proof, for evidence. Where is it?
“simply being servile to preferred definitions”
Look you guys asked us for better definitions of ORBIT and we gave you them. Clear concise ones that show that an ORBIT is simply a path, a trajectory thru space.
DREMT insists on making up his own different definition, to include orientational change (rotation), that supports his side of the argument.
Lets ask neutral observers whether they think making up your own definitions, when the universally accepted ones don’t work for you, is allowed in a debate.
Go ahead and take a survey of your friends and family whether they think, in a debate, if its ok for one team to make up their own, different, definitions of common terms, in order to ‘win’ the debate.
Tell us what you find.
Pondering the issue it seems to me DREMT and Tesla may well have been right on the issue of a moon with no spin flying right into orbit, with no spin and flying right out (if that were made possible) with no spin.
The answer seems consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Namely that a orbit itself is merely like an ice skater’s speed in rotation. It is already thought everything is orbiting something (no matter if galaxies, solar systems, whatever), if so it has an angular momentum with some very large r value. Reduce the r and the apparent rotation speeds up misleading our spinner folks into believing it must have some kind of independent spin that comes from the ignorant idea of objects starting out flying in straight lines.
Now of course for objects with spins created by collisions or other traumatic events sometime in the distant past, the natural rotation around an object is diverted by the spin into a precession of the axis instead that results in a slower natural rotation of orbiting object in its orbit.
Tesla was an amazing guy. Foresaw wireless charging probably beat Marconi on radio waves. So much inspiration. Seems he was a bit disorganized in his life, but I can see why. . . .so much to work on . . . .so little time.
“Tesla was an amazing guy.”
Sure.
But on this issue, the amazing Newton got it right.
“a moon with no spin flying right into orbit, with no spin and flying right out (if that were made possible) with no spin.”
Sure!
Or flying into orbit with spin, having spin while in orbit, and flying right out (if that were made possible) with spin.
Lets be clear flying in/out with/without spin = flying in/out with/without rotation.
Not consistent, is flying in without rotation, having rotation while in orbit, then fling out again without rotation.
Nate you already lost the argument for failure to produce any science on the topic.
DREMT is the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case for his position by producing the Madhavi paper. Its a ‘no contest’ as the other team hasn’t responded except by whining and handwaving.
Nate says:
Lets be clear flying in/out with/without spin = flying in/out with/without rotation.
Not consistent, is flying in without rotation, having rotation while in orbit, then fling out again without rotation.
=====================================
Nate when it flies out its not going in a straight line, same flying in. It apriori possesses an angular momentum from if anything flying around the galaxy. The only difference in orbit is similar to the skater pulling in her arms. The pull of gravity from earth takes the moon and puts it into a more rapid rotation than it was already in. The exception is traumatic events to objects in the universe that put an axial spin on an object that is bound to stop sometime in the future as gravitational pulls simply end that spin.
The protoUranus example shows a planet with a spin axis parallel with the ecliptic plane has a rotation around the sun with an implied axis perpendicular to the spin axis. But due to the forces exemplified by a top, when spinning on its own axis, the rotation around the solar cog axis is modified into a precession. . . .just like a top. . .when and if the axial spin stops then you are left with a tidally locked planet rotating with its inherent angular momentum that comes from just being in the universe.
To tighten it up a bit here is something to look at:
https://physicsworld.com/a/was-the-universe-born-spinning/
Then look at how angular momentum is calculated with the r factor.
This concept clearly separates orbital spin vs axial spin. The protoUranus example helps fortify it.
“DREMT is the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case”
Hilarious!
Bill, Im not too worried about your view on who the ‘winner’ is. You have already taken sides, and have lost all objectivity.
Just as in the election, the partisan’s view of who won doesnt matter, only the vote count matters.
Here only the neutral observers opinions matter. They are able to objectively see that DREMT has made up his own definitions, and that is not ok.
“It apriori possesses an angular momentum from if anything flying around the galaxy.”
Yes, as I have discussed several times, anything flying past a point has angular momentum, mvr. Even a point mass, which cannot rotate!
“The only difference in orbit is similar to the skater pulling in her arms.’
This is an interesting example, and you have to analyze it carefully.
One skater comes in at a distance r from the center, with momentum, mv, no spin, but still has angular momentum mvr.
The other skater reaches out and grabs her hand, and applies a torque on her.
How do we know that? Because the force he applies to her arm is perpendicular to it.
The torque he applies to her gives her SPIN angular momentum.
Likewise she applies the same torque on him (Newtons 3rd law), and thus give him SPIN angular momentum.
If he lets her go, she would fly off with SPIN rotation, and less mvr angular momentum.
In the case of a Moon fying into orbit, it also has mvr angular momentum.
But gravity has no way of reaching out and grabbing the Moon by its arm and applying a perpendicular force on it. It can only apply a force on the moon parallel to the line between Earth and Moon. This cannot apply torque.
So unlike the skaters, no SPIN angular momentum is applied to the Moon and no rotation. but it does have mvr, orbital angular momentum.
sorry Nate you still lose. You will continue to lose until you post a science paper that supports your position.
Using the words of people who never studied this explicit issue who never issued a science paper on it just don’t qualify. Thats why relying on the fallacy of authority is such a common disqualifed argument.
Its OK to use authority when you provide the science paper to support it.
For instance when my Dr. recommends a prescription I always go home look it up read about it and its side effects and its specific pharmacological use. I then decide if I should take the prescription or not. If it is a life threatening situation, which I have never faced, then I would go get a second of third opinion if what I had read raised concerning questions.
Now Doctors have standards they are in violation of their oath if they make recommendations outside of their specialties. Malpractice is a threat they live with. But who wants to be in the situation of filing a malpractice suit if there are other avenues to take to ascertain what the Doctor has recommended is within the scope of their specialty.
The Madhavi paper is definitely within the scope of wise and unique definitions of rotation. So wise and so definitive its universally applicable. Now the Madhavi paper doesn’t concern itself which way an object might be rotating when bolted to its rotational axis.
Thus regardless if an object is spinning when entering orbit or not in an orbit around a single object but around the galaxie it will at some time be locked to that rotation, like the floating bowls in the larger bowl.
Further this rotation is naturally developed. Saying its just a remaining spin is BS as if it is spinning in the opposite direction it has to stop and then be put into motion in the opposite direction so the ”spin down” argument is nonsense.
Face it Nate. In the absence of a science paper specifically making a case for orbital rotation not being exactly what it appears to be in every case or either a one for one rotation or a precessional rotation slowed down by a natural spin on a different axis Madhavi has the right concept. You lose again.
And I am not biased as you claim. I came into the discussion a few months ago without a thought about it. I was heehawing both directions until DREMT settled the case with the Madhavi paper.
I even didn’t definitively call it until now months later. You and all your doubter buddies haven’t come up with a shred of science to make you case.
So now I am calling it. You lose!!!
Don’t bother arguing it further. You will make zero progress without a paper on the matter.
Certainly if you find a paper then you have justification of bringing the issue back up.
“The Madhavi paper is definitely within the scope of wise and unique definitions of rotation. So wise and so definitive its universally applicable.”
Bill you lose every time you toss out Madhavi, while never specifying what in her course supports your position, though you have been asked 17 times.
She is just presenting standard kinematics which none of us on the spinner side disagree with. That doesnt do a damn thing to support your model.
Meanwhile, you saw what I wrote about your skaters. Tell me what part is wrong or what you dont understand.
“Using the words of people who never studied this explicit issue who never issued a science paper on it just dont qualify.”
Which explicit issue? Orbits? Gravity?
Newton wrote Principia 300 y ago, which explicitly addressed the issue of what an orbit is, and what specifically the Moon is doing, and how gravity is creating orbits. He stated in it specifically that the Moon is rotating on its own axis!
If you think his words dont qualify, then you are very confused.
produce the paper nate if you don’t to be branded a loser.
Sure Im happy to give you what you ask for, Bill.
Now kindly specify what in the Madhavi txtbook supports your position, that you have been asked 18 times.
Thus far, you take the Cult’s word for it that it helps their POV. Lets see you actually use your auditor skills.
What the matter Nate? Can’t read yet? Need mommy to read it to you?
As I repeatedly explained Bill. I have read it.
It is a standard textbook treatment of kinematics. Its not a research paper, dimwit. And since it uses standard definitions, you should be skeptical of it.
In any case, nothing in it supports your position.
But let me remind you that YOU and the cult claim it does.
Why then is it such a heavy lift for you to find the quotes, point them out, and show how they support your position??
Your evasion confirms that you simply take the CULT’s word for it.
LAME!
Meanwhile the CULT makes up its own definition of ORBIT, that is also not to be found in Madhavi.
The objective observers call BS on that.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Introduction
Kinematics is the science of describing the motion of objects using words, diagrams, numbers, graphs, and equations.
Nate, indeed science is what we are talking about, not common definitions that you swallowed whole believing it to be science.
Still not pointing out supportive quotes in Madhavi Bill. What seems to be the trouble? Lets face it, you can’t find any.
“not common definitions that you swallowed whole”
You are being very dumb Bill. As in any textbook, hers is full of definitions. No science can be communicated without using universal definitions.
Hers are consistent with the standard ones. IE Rotation, Translation, Curvilinear Translation, all the same.
DREMTS made-up definitions are not the same as the standard ones.
Specifically ORBIT, AXIS, AXIAL TILT etc.
Please find ORBIT, AXIS, AXIAL TILT defined in Madhavi, or anywhere. You guys have been unable to quote one that agrees with DREMTS in any reputable source.
Yet his entire case is built on that.
That SHOULD bother you. The fact that it doesnt is telling.
“…not common definitions that you swallowed whole believing it to be science.”
Speaking of definitions, here is another link defining revolution as a rotation about an external axis:
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
In fact, the web is full of such definitions. It’s almost like astronomers have kept the terminology, but lost the connection to the fact that a rotation about an external axis is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards that axis whilst it moves.
Still waiting for you to show us a definition of ORBIT that agrees with what youve claimed.
We have provided a couple that show clearly that it is simply a path thru space.
“have kept the terminology, but lost the connection to the fact that a rotation about an external axis is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards that axis whilst it moves.”
Never was such a connection, so nothing lost.
You dont agree with either Newton or Astronomy.
Oh well! Wadda you gonna do?
Take em to court!
“When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.
Pretty colloquial terms tossed around here at Brightstar.
‘Circles’ would that be what an eliptical orbit does??
DREMT fails to agree with DREMT’s own source on rotation defn.: “When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation.”
DREMT words: “the fact that a rotation about an external axis…”
Ball4 does struggle with the English language…
Brightstorm “Our membership targets the high-school age curriculum”
Best you can do?
#2
Ball4 does struggle with the English language
“He was suggesting that the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record disintegrates!”
Of course they were. Objects do not start spinning on their own accord (Newtons first law of motion). At the moment of disintegration, the orbital angular momentum of the object becomes linear momentum, with the object flying off at a tangent to its radius of orbit. Since the object had spin angular momentum prior to disintegration as well, the object keeps on spinning, with both momentums conserved.
You just don’t get it because you’re a complete idiot when it comes to physics, which is why you are in this small flat earth cult.
SGW, the “pieces” of the record do not even exist (as pieces) before disintegration. The record is one whole unit, all parts of which are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, prior to disintegration.
You just need to learn where the rotational axes are. The record has only one rotational axis when it is whole. When it breaks apart, there are now lots of pieces, which each have their own rotational axis.
If you do not learn where the rotational axes are, you just end up with ridiculous conclusions, like thinking every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating!
Ok, good to know that once pieces are no longer part of a rigid body, they are rotating around their own axes.
So the Moon not being rigidly attached to the EARTH, moving like the pieces of record, must be rotating about its axis!
Makes sense.
But DREMT being DREMT will fail to follow where his own logic leads..
SkepticGoneWild says:
November 3, 2020 at 11:03 AM
Look the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX
_______________________________________
Excellent explanation.
Everything should be clear now for everyone.
I see we still have the same guys still figuring angular momentum science on this issue can be settled with the last lesson they actually understood in physics which they learned in kindergarten. . . .”see spot run”
The version 6 fiddle is still wrong. When the UAH data can replicate the actual reading of the Equatorial Pacific moored buoys it might be useful:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3LJuByjstkozrzc
For now it remains a fiddled data set that does not match reality.
RickWill
Your contribution might be of some more interest if you were willing to develop your rather cryptic thoughts.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
RickWill
” For now it remains a fiddled data set that does not match reality. ”
Aha.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-3117974
I rather think your thoughts might need to be adapted to reality…
J.-P. D.
Take some time to look at reality rather than the much fiddled satellite data. These are buoys moored in the ocean:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/
Come back to me after you have looked at actual on the spot measurements rather than the contrived data from satellites.
RickWill,
Why are you wanting/expecting UAH to replicate the actual readings of equatorial pacific moored buoys?
The moored buoys were used as the calibration standard for the satellite data. I would like to know why the satellite now departs the moored buoy data. The equatorial moored buoys have had a stable temperature for the last 40 years:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/
This is basic physics. The open ocean surface temperature can never exceed 305K and the tropical moored buoys have never exceeded 304K.
At TPW of 38mm the atmosphere goes into daily cloud burst mode. This is responsible for monsoon and tropical cyclone at latitudes above 10 degrees. The resulting highly reflective clouds cool the ocean surface. This is a very powerful thermostat that limits ocean surface temperature to 305K. Rejection of insolation rises asymptotically toward 305K; it cannot be exceeded.
The tropical SST is essentially constant. Slight variation with swings in ocean current but from decade-to-decade it has to be constant. Any temperature measure that shows a long term trend with tropical SST is WRONG.
Can you post a link to literature describing this calibration process for UAH with equatorial buoys? This is the first I’m hearing about it.
This link explains the issues with satellite measurements and why they need correction:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/15/4/353/29742/Toward-Improved-Validation-of-Satellite-Sea
RickWill, That publication is relevant to satellite derived SSTs. UAH does not measure SSTs.
RickWill wrote:
Please note that the moored buoys are NOT USED to calibrate the MSU/AMSU! Each instrument scans cross track, stopping at intervals to measure the microwave intensity. At one end of each scan, the antenna views deep space at around 2.7K and at the other end, it views a heated target with several high accuracy platinum thermometers embedded within. The measure at each position is compared with these values to establish a point on a scale, just like the calibration used to define the Celsius between 0C at water’s freezing point and 100C at boiling. The result was originally called “Brightness Temperature”, though S&C would have us believe the data represents “bulk” temperature of the atmosphere.
That is instrument calibration not the entire process calibration or validation. Having the imstruments calibrated does not mean the instruments in satellites provide anything that resembles surface temperature. The means of inferring a surface temperature or near surface temperature from what is being sensed needs to be calibrated.
MODIS shows global ocean cooling from July 2002 to 2020 apart from the equator where it is constant:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3GJZzfUccCa6osu
Area averaged SST is down by 0.2C.
I would like to see the direct comparison between MODIS SST and the UAH data and understand why they differ.
RickWill,
UAH does not measure SST. They don’t even measure the near surface temperature. Although there is a correlation between UAH TLT and SST on climatic time scales you certainly would not want to calibrate TLT with SST.
I’m not sure how that image you linked to was created. It doesn’t seem to match what I’m seeing with HadSST or ERSST. I’d like to know more about how you created it or where it came from.
I can get you a comparison of HadSST and UAH TLT pretty easily. Sorry, but woodfortrees does not provide a global mean SST derived from MODIS so it would take considerably more work to get that for you. I don’t typically work with the MODIS data unfortunately. https://tinyurl.com/y5m2reke
Yes you are right bdgwx UAH doesn’t measure the surface. But modeling theory believes the lower atmosphere will warm faster than the surface.
RickWill
I have now a bit of time to contradict your somewhat arrogant and boasting attitude.
What you write here is complete nonsense.
The calibration performed using moored buoys solely concerns satellite infrared readings at SEA SURFACES, and have NOTHING to do with temperature readings using O2 microwave emissions in the 60 GHz band, at tropospheric altitudes above 4 km.
Please stop
– misinforming people at WUWT and in this blog
– denigrating the work done by peple like Roy Spencer.
J.-P. D.
The UAH data is purporting to represent surface temperature albeit it is referred to as Lower Troposphere rather than actual surface temperature.
All the satellite data is manipulated to infer a surface temperature or something close to it. The MODIS SST from NEO shows reduction in SST of 0.2C from July 2002 to July 2020. Why isn’t UAH also showing a reduction in SST?
If UAH is showing equatorial SST increasing then it is not a reliable indicator of surface temperature. The Version 6 adjustments are unreliable.
UAH data is not purporting to be surface temperatures. From the very first sentence at the top of this page on the global temperature update:
“The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October…”
Some fool commentators may equate surface temperature with LT, but no one serious does. Certainly not the people who compile it.
One regular commentator on this site tends to equate LT temps with surface, believing the MSU instruments can isolate surface temps from the lower troposphere. But that’s not someone that influences anything.
The geomagnetic field affects the pattern and strength of a stratospheric polar winter vortex. Therefore, the variation of the sea ice in the north and south are different.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_f.jpg
https://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_s_f.jpg
This is especially true for long periods of low solar activity.
How to simulate the Moons motion in your backyard. Turn a bicycle upside down, so the front wheel is aligned East and West. When you spin the wheel, the valve fitment should eventually settle at the bottom, closer to the Earth (unless some clever bugger has balanced the wheel!). Gravity at work.
Now wait 24 hours. The wheel has orbited around the Earths center. Has it revolved around its axis (the axle)? No. Has gravity kept the valve fitment closest to the Earth? Yes. Is the Moon denser on the side perpetually facing the Earth? Yes, actually. Check it out.
Not an analogy. An example of gravity keeping one side of something free to rotate about its axis facing the surface. Even allowing for the resistance of the air and friction in the bearings. How about that?
The valve only settles because of friction.
S,
Gravity, not friction. Unless you have magical friction which always stops the imbalance closest to the Earth. Maybe the same magical friction which keeps the denser side of the Moon facing the Earth?
Face reality.
They would rotate forever without friction, albeit with a wobble.
S,
I think you mean its rotational speed would vary, as the gravitational force on the valve is weaker when the valve is furthest away from the Earth, greater when it is closer.
Like any physical body, the wheel experiences tidal effects, just like the solid Earth, or the Moon. These generate heat, which radiates away, and the rotation of the body slows in line with various conservation laws.
Eventually, the wheel, the Moon, or the Earth, stops rotating, densest parts closest to each other.
Reality. The bicycle is not an analogy, it is an example. Even if you wish away the reality of friction. In the case of the Moon, you might try wishing away tidal effects, or the evidence of massive and irregular meteor impacts, and the fact that the side facing away from the Earth is totally different in topography.
Yes, tidal effects on the Moon (and on your wheel if you throw it in the ocean). Effective on a million year time scale, no centre of mass offset required.
It is true tidal locking doesn’t require any non-uniformity of mass as a prerequisite. the tidal effect will create one though.
However, its unrealistic to believe that any object doesn’t have mass distribution non-uniformity as an assumption.
A real world example is a volunteer engineer built us a raffle wheel. It was a machined aluminum disk mounted vertically on ball bearings all precisioned drilled with machinery designed for the purpose with pegs mounted. Beautiful piece of equipment. We had some trouble designing a flapper to select the winning slot as the wheel still had an imbalance and with the ultra smooth ballbearings always wanted to fall and make the same number a winner.
In fact folks used to beat las vegas roulette wheels the same way, until vegas started regularly changing wheels to avoid someone surreptitiously compiling the statistics on any particular wheel. You can probably still do it, just that it’s really hard to avoid detection and getting yourself booted, or worse.
It can’t explain longitudinal libration though.
libration in latitude is due to the moon’s orbit being tilted to the ecliptic by 6.7 degrees.
libration in longitude is due to the elliptical nature of the orbit .
Yes, since orbital and rotational speed are different.
The primary pull of gravity is on the ecliptic. But everything in the solar system is relative to the Laplace invariable plane thats off the ecliptic by about a degree and a half, about the same as the precession of the moon in time with the precession of it elliptical orbit.
Bottom line is you guys are hallucinating. If you are on some where in a space ship out near a distant star and you focus a strong telescope, zooming in to fill the glass, with a precision aiming at the center of the moon, you will see it rotating.
Now slowly zoom out and there you see it the earth rotating around the moon.
Svante, Nate, Bob, Mike, Ball4 and Fritz rush out to get a grant to write a multi-author paper that contrary to popular opinion the moon spins on its own axis and the earth orbits around the moon.EOS
No need to write a paper, it’s in every book on the topic.
“zooming in to fill the glass, with a precision aiming at the center of the moon, you will see it rotating.”
Exactly. It IS an observable fact.
“Now slowly zoom out and there you see it the earth rotating around the moon.”
And so what?
Every book on the topic says the Earth orbits the moon!?
I dont think so, Svante.
“libration in latitude is due to the moon’s orbit being tilted to the ecliptic by 6.7 degrees.”
Uhhh…axial tilt.
Bill can’t get anything right. Cuz lets face it, he knows facts just annoyances.
Nate, you are just barfing up inapplicable arguments still completely devoid of a scientific reference that states the moon rotates because the axial tilt proves so. You are just a blind guy in this debate trying to pin the tail on the donkey and everybody is laughing.
“inapplicable arguments”
You are not even trying to support your claims or make sense anymore. Ur done.
No Nate its your lack of argument, lack of science papers to support your view that this argument is done and warmed over.
This paper shows DREMT is correct: https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
This paper shows you are correct: There isn’t one.
You lost Nate. No amount of whining and complaining that Madhavi didn’t specify all the objects that must obey the laws of physics is quite simply . . . .juvenile.
Bill,
The Madhavi publication is a textbook you complete and utter idiot. There is no proof presented anywhere in that textbook regarding the moon.
Furthermore, doesn’t an object rotating on its own axis stop rotating when it reaches zero rotations per orbit??????? (i.e. when it’s translating) You seem to think that an object stops rotating on its own axis when it reaches 1 rotation per orbit.
wrongo you are a complete and utter idiot. We have told the whole lot of you morons the moon rotates . . . .on an external axis.. . .but for only one possible reason that just doesn’t sink in for you guys.
And yes Madhavi is a textbook teaching applied physics. And there is a reason for what she is teaching which is obvious you haven’t figured out yet what it is.
Back when I went to school if you didn’t figure out what the textbook was for you weren’t going to pass the class. Today when you can’t figure it out they give you an ‘A’ for effort as they don’t want to damage your fragile egos.
Bill,
I have not met anyone so stupid. You deflected because you could not answer my question.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis. It has ZERO rotations per orbit. It’s translating. You do know what translation is, right? Of course you don’t because you are a freakin’ idiot.
The moon on the left is not translating, which means it’s rotating on its own axis. Do you know how many times it’s rotating? Of course you don’t, because you can’t count to one!
“You lost Nate. No amount of whining and complaining that Madhavi didn’t specify all the objects that must obey the laws of physics is quite simply . . . .juvenile.’
Clearly you are unable to point to ANYTHING in this rather bland, standard textbook that supports the Cult’s beliefs. This is a myth that grows with every evasion by Bill.
What to do? How can I evade pointing out something that doesnt exist?
Blame Nate! Create a strawman, and just keep posting it.
SGW again confirms that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout the orbit. Thanks, SGW.
SkepticGoneWild says:
Bill,
I have not met anyone so stupid. You deflected because you could not answer my question.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis. It has ZERO rotations per orbit. It’s translating. You do know what translation is, right? Of course you don’t because you are a freakin’ idiot.
The moon on the left is not translating, which means it’s rotating on its own axis. Do you know how many times it’s rotating? Of course you don’t, because you can’t count to one!
—————————-
This reference proves you are wrong. Pay attention to Figure 2(b), that is if you have the IQ to read an illustration.
And if you think the reference is wrong, feel free to offer up something that disputes it. If you feel you don’t need a reference then you be the stupid one.
Nate says:
”
”You lost Nate. No amount of whining and complaining that Madhavi didn’t specify all the objects that must obey the laws of physics is quite simply . . . .juvenile.”
Clearly you are unable to point to ANYTHING in this rather bland, standard textbook that supports the Cults beliefs. This is a myth that grows with every evasion by Bill.
What to do? How can I evade pointing out something that doesnt exist?
Blame Nate! Create a strawman, and just keep posting it.
—————————-
Figure 2b works just fine Nate. Where is your reference? Oh thats right it comes straight out of the primordial soup your brain is made of.
“Figure 2b works just fine Nate. ”
Wow. It shows a Rigid Body Rotator. Every textbook on this topic shows such things.
This is saying MGR and record players exist. Yes we already knew that!
But it does nothing for the Earth-Moon system which is two separated rigid bodies.
Nate, the Madhavi is an excellent analogy to the forces acting on the moon.
Your argument amounts to a sentence mentioning the moon rotating around its axis without specifying what that was. e.g. figure 2(b) rotates around its axis.
So maybe the Madhavi argument is the be all end all but at least it is completely consistent explanation for what the moon does.
Right now I am strongly leaning to the idea that your concept of an object flying in a straight line going into orbit would perhaps perform as you suggest until tidal forces brought it under control.
But objects in the universe don’t fly in straight lines. . . .not even photons. L=mvr. From there the earth moon system works like an ice skater as the moon flies into stable orbit from whereever. Perhaps it broke of the earth when the earth was spinning fast, which would also put a spin on it that would be eventually brought into control much faster than the moon slows down the earth.
Bottom line is the only thing that matters is the physics so if you want to advance an alternative argument do it with physics, not statements of physicists. When and if you ever grow up you will know why that’s important.
https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
This movement is considered general plane motion, which consists of a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about the center of mass. How many rotations? One per orbit.
This object’s movement does not meet the requirements of your sacred “Figure 2b” in your Madhavi “paper”. As you clowns state, “pay attention to Figure 2b”
And when you figure out what a translation is, let us know.
"This movement is considered general plane motion…"
SGW authoritatively declares that orbital motion is considered "general plane motion", with no support.
“Your argument amounts to a sentence mentioning the moon rotating around its axis”
Well other than all the other arguments, based on angular momentum, kinematic principles, the definition of orbit, the direct observations of a lunar axis, lunar librations.
Well DREMT authoritatively declares that the Moon behaves as fig 2b, a rigid rotator.
But we know the Earth-Moon is not a rigid rotator, not rigid, and the Moon is not doing a simple circular motion (a rotation) around an external point. Far from it.
In the textbook it states that “Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a translation is referred to as a general plane motion”
“general plane motion” which consists of a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about the center of mass.
Yep, it is authoritatively according to Madhavi, the right choice.
“This object’s movement does not meet the requirements of your sacred “Figure 2b” in your Madhavi “paper”. As you clowns state, “pay attention to Figure 2b””
Lol, to you guys, nothing>/b> meets the requirements of Figure 2(b)! Not a ball on a string, not a wooden horse on a carousel, not even the chalk circle!
When you guys can finally bring yourselves to admit that the wooden horse, chalk circle and ball on a string are all in pure rotation, and not rotating on their own axes, maybe we can move on to discussing orbital motion…
“SGW authoritatively declares that orbital motion is considered “general plane motion”, with no support”
I am just using Dr. Madhavi’s paper for support. According to Dr. Madhavi, there are three kinds of motion: Translation, rotation about a fixed axis, and general plane motion.
https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
The above motion is not translation. It’s not rotation about a fixed axis. So that leaves general plane motion. You lose again.
An orbit is a path, Einstein.
As I said, SGW, according to you, nothing is a pure rotation.
Admit that the wooden horse, chalk circle, and ball on a string are all examples of pure rotation (i.e. they are not rotating on their own axes) and we can discuss whether or not orbital motion should be classed as pure rotation. Until then, I am not interested.
I never said the ball on a string is not fixed axis rotation. (that is the common verbiage) A ball on a string does meet the requirements for fixed axis rotation. But that does NOT mean the ball is not rotating on its own axis. The definitions for fixed axis rotation never precludes that.
Furthermore, Chasles’s Theorem states: “the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.” The proof is in the following reference (Appendix 20A)
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/readings/MIT8_01F16_chapter20.pdf
The ball on a string is an example of fixed axis rotation, but the motion of the ball can be described as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation around its center of mass. The ball does rotate about its own axis one time per orbit. It would only stop rotating on its own axis if it were translating.
You are ridiculous. You accept that the ball on a string is an example of an object rotating about an external axis (one motion, no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass)…
…then in the next breath, you insist that it is a translation plus a rotation about the ball’s center of mass (two motions).
You are arguing with yourself.
You are the ridiculous one. You are just a small cult like the flat earth society.
Read Chasles’s theorem again. The motion of ball on a string (rigid body) can be described as a translation of its center of mass plus a rotation around its center of mass.
You are the one that is backwards with all your inconsistencies. How can an object rotating once on its own axis and an object rotating zero times on its own axis BOTH be considered as not rotating on their own axes? Zero rotations MEAN zero rotations. ONE rotation actually means one rotation.
There are things that are in pure rotation, like a MGR, a record on a record player.
There ya go. Be happy.
But not the Moon.
So now can we be done?
SGW, a ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. I do not know why this confuses you so much.
Dr Em T,
I don’t know why Chasles’s Theorem confuses you. Read it again.
The ball on a string is not the moon, nor is in the case of a wooden horse on a merry-go-round. The string confuses you, though. Just remember, an object stops rotating on its own axis when it translates.
And remember, 2 rotations means 2 rotations, 1 rotation means 1 rotation. Zero rotations means zero rotations. Numbers have actual meanings. And one does not equal zero.
You cannot have an object in orbit rotating two times on its own axis per orbit slow its rotation down to 0.5 rotations, and claim it stopped rotating at the one rotation per orbit mark. Makes ZERO sense. Very dumb.
I’m sorry you find the “Non-Spinner” position so puzzling. It really is as simple as “orbital motion without axial rotation involves the same side of the body remaining oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout”. A ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. If you applied Chasles’s theorem to every situation then you would be doing away with such pure rotation altogether.
An orbit is a path, usually elliptical. An object has zero axial rotations when it exhibits translation. The moon is not translating. It is not even translating curvilinearly.
Sorry this is beyond your mental capacity.
“An object has zero axial rotations when it exhibits translation.”
Or, when it is purely rotating about an external axis.
SkepticGoneWild says:
Read Chasles’s theorem again. The motion of ball on a string (rigid body) can be described as a translation of its center of mass plus a rotation around its center of mass.
——————————
Of course it ”can be”. Madhavi has several examples of that. And she notes one exception.
“It really is as simple as “orbital motion without axial rotation involves the same side of the body remaining oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout”.
The Flat Earth really is as simple as the Earth is flat.
Simple does not equal correct.
Again, you keep declaring a definition of ORBIT:
a. Youve never provided evidence to support.
b. Youve been repeatedly shown evidence that it is FALSE. An ORBIT is defined as a path thru space. There is NOTHING in the definition about a side facing inward.
c. All observed astronomical parameters of the Moon require it to have axial rotation on a tilted axis.
d. Your belief requires you to state that observable things (ie Lunar Poles) simply do not exist!
As noted, with your belief long since FALSIFIED by standard definitions and direct observations, to continue to believe it and to continue to falsely claim it is still true puts you squarely in the Religious Zealot category.
"An orbit is a path, Einstein."
1) If an orbit was just a path, you would not be able to describe how an object that was orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis remains oriented.
2) Your position can only logically be that such an object remains oriented towards the same fixed star, whilst it moves.
3) Our position can only logically be that such an object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.
4) The motion described in 3 can also be labelled "a rotation about an external point, or axis".
5) You can find plenty of definitions on the internet describing an orbit, or revolution, as a rotation about an external point, or axis.
6) You can also find plenty of definitions on the internet describing an orbit as a path…but then you need to go through 1 – 5 again.
“1) If an orbit was just a path, you would not be able to describe how an object that was orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis remains oriented.”
Kinematics does not concern itself with the “why” or “how” of motion. The topic has been whether or not an object is rotating on its own axis or not. The “why” or “how is not important. One does not need to know that to describe the motion of a body.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
Continuing evermore in deep denialism.
“1) If an orbit was just a path, you would not be able to describe how an object that was orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis remains oriented.”
An orbit is just a path, a translation thru space. There is no rotation. Period. So it remains fixed in orientation to the stars.
The Earth’s motion is described as ORBITING the SUN and Rotating on its Axis, JUST as Madhavi describes, it is a general plane motion, it is a combo of CM translation and rotation around the CM. And you have no problem with this for the Earth. Same goes for the Moon.
“3) Our position can only logically be that such an object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.”
An object oriented towards the center has Rotation. An ORBIT without rotation contains NO rotation.
Not logical.
This is YOU changing the definition of ORBIT to suit your preconceived hypothesis.
A big NO NO in science.
#2
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
Irrelevant to the argument.
If the wheel has rotated once in 24 hours, the axle has rotated once in 24 hours.
If the wheel has not rotated, nor has the axle.
In either case the wheel does not rotate relative to the axle.
Entropic man: It seems that you’re not a cyclist. As one who has built up many a bicycle over 60 years of cycling, I can assure you that the wheel axle on a bicycle is fixed to the frame, and does not rotate. The wheel rotates about the axle via ball bearings.
Noting the earlier comment about the tyre valve settling at the bottom of a spun wheel due to gravity, it’s worth noting that this only happens if the wheel bearings are of high quality, well adjusted, and friction thereby minimal.
The debate now about building bicycles
Very good
Do yellow submarines rotate about their axis?
J.-P. D.
Eben: the debate is not now about building bicycles.
Entropic man commented that ‘if the wheel has rotated once in 24 hours, the axle has rotated once in 24 hours.
If the wheel has not rotated, nor has the axle.
In either case the wheel does not rotate relative to the axle.’
It’s not a debate as you suggest. My comment was a statement of fact.
rick will…”The version 6 fiddle is still wrong. When the UAH data can replicate the actual reading of the Equatorial Pacific moored buoys it might be useful:…For now it remains a fiddled data set that does not match reality”.
Don’t be daft. The sat scanners cover 95% of the surface, including all the ocean surfaces. Why would you want to compare a handful of buoys to the precision? Besides the bouys are affected by the water in which they are immersed, sea spray, and bird poop.
The moored buoys provide a direct temperature measurement using directly calibrated instruments. The thermometers are 1m below the surface. Bird poop does not penetrate. The casings do get covered with sea growth but that only dampens the response – a better average.
All satellite data is fiddled to infer a surface or near surface temperature. The only way the measurement can be validated is against insitu measurements and the moored buoys provide the best reference.
If moored buoys show zero trend but the satellite data shows a trend then I wonder how the data is fiddled and why it departs reality.
The MODIS data supplied by NEO shows the SST has reduced by 0.2C from July 2002 to July 2020. It has zero trend on the equator. Why isn’t UAH also showing this cooling.
rick will…”The moored buoys were used as the calibration standard for the satellite data. I would like to know why the satellite now departs the moored buoy data”.
Where did you get that fiction? One calibration set point is done by pointing the instrument at deep space. They have an on-board warm target for the other set point. Why the heck would anyone want to use an ocean-bound buoy?
The instruments on the satellite are calibrated but the process of inferring a surface or near temperature from those calibrated instruments is a fiddle that needs calibration or validation against inset measurement. That is the fundamental problem with remote sensing; the process infers a temperature rather than actually measuring a temperature.
The Version 6 fiddle for UAH does not appear to reproduce reality, whereby the equatorial SST shows no trend over the last 40 years.
RickWill
1. ” The UAH data is purporting to represent surface temperature albeit it is referred to as Lower Troposphere rather than actual surface temperature. ”
NO.
Only ignorants (one of them regularly posting such nonsense here) think that UAH, RSS or NOAA STAR would be ‘purporting to represent surface temperature’. This is by no means the case.
Roy Spencer for example has clearly explained the bias associated to a processing of O2 microwave emissions near surface, especially above the oceans. This is, if I’m well informed, the reason for adding, into the averaging for the lower troposphere, a tiny bit of the lower stratosphere data.
*
2. ” All the satellite data is manipulated to infer a surface temperature or something close to it. The MODIS SST from NEO shows reduction in SST of 0.2C from July 2002 to July 2020. Why isn’t UAH also showing a reduction in SST? ”
You have been explained that at WUWT, but continue to ignore the fact that nothing implies that temperature estimates coming from data collected at about 4 km altitude must reproduce surface temperatures, let alone at sea surface.
Simply because in the troposphere, we see weather and climate patterns differing by a lot from those existing at the surface, especially in the Tropics. There, temperatures are mainly driven by the planet’s highest convection and subsequent poleward advection streams.
At best you can see, despite the somewhat different trends, a nice correlation between UAH6.0 LT in the region 20N-20S — 155W-105W with the corresponding evaluation of the British HadISST1 sea surface series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19gzp9vYb7RbNU56opfCzalGXGx5PGrdv/view
A last remark: while for the region mentioned above, the UAH and HadISST1 series show, for the period 1979-2020, the following trends in c/ decade:
– UAH: 0.09 +- 0.02
– Had: 0.02 +- 0.02
But their trends move, for the period 2002-2020, up to
– UAH: 0.17 +- 0.06
– Had: 0.20 +- 0.07
*
3. ” If UAH is showing equatorial SST increasing then it is not a reliable indicator of surface temperature. The Version 6 adjustments are unreliable. ”
Please stop discrediting people’s work on the basis of your superficial thoughts, merely based on what I call ‘unsound skepticism’.
J.-P. D.
To sum up what you are stating here – UAH temperature data is a meaningless number unrelated to conditions experienced by people living on the planet.
It could bear some relevance to people living at 4km altitude.
Can you please add trend lines for the two tropical Pacific data sets. They look close to zero trend, which would match the buoys?
That would confirm the data sets are not entirely useless as they match the reality of the buoys.
This is SST data for the Nino 34 region of the Pacific:
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/nina34.data
It is has zero trend.
This is UAH for the same region for the same period:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_60_-120–170E_5–5N_n.png
It has an upward trend of 0.08C/decade.
That means the UAH LT data is a useless reading for surface temperature. It needs to be fiddled more to get it closer to reality.
RickWill,
Here is a plot of your linked SST data for the Niño 3.4 region:
https://i.postimg.cc/vZXPncSR/Nino3-4-SST.jpg
Hmmm … 0.08C/decade.
To be compared with the UAH data set you need to start in 1980 and finish in 2021 so you get the same data range as the UAH data.
The start and end points matter when the trend is near zero and the data has yearly and decadal variability.
On that basis the trend becomes 0.013C/decade – in fact the trend from 1982 to present is negative.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
So there is no significant trend through the period of the satellite record.
RickWill,
If you want a comparison of UAH to a directly sensed dataset then you’ll want to use radiosondes. The University of Washington maintains such a comparison.
https://tinyurl.com/v5ux75g
bdgwx
” … then youll want to use radiosondes. ”
Hmmmh. Indeed, but… it works only when using highly homogenised radiosondes like the RATPAC set.
And due to the fact that this homogenisation was performed at the Vienna university by using satellite data (see RICH and RAOBCORE), you will, in some sense, compare satellite data with itself.
Using all radiosondes of the whole IGRA set (of which RATPAC is, with 85 of over 1500 units, a minuscule subset) won’t give anything valuable because IGRA’s averaging at 700 hPa (i.e. 3.7 km altitude) is way above RATPAC and e.g. UAH.
J.-P. D.
Interesting. That is good to know.
I read the Spencer Christiy paper on that site and it is clear that they need a Version 7 that is closer to reality if they want to produce a record that has any relevance to sea surface temperature. Why bother if it is jus a meaningless number; unrelated to anything on the surface.
The Nino34 data shows a cooling trend through the satellite era:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
They don’t want to measure the surface temperature nor would it even be feasible with microwave sounders. We have various other datasets that measure the surface temperature already (including satellite derived like AIRS). And just because a bulk temperature centered around 700mb’ish isn’t meaningful to laypeople doesn’t mean isn’t meaningful to scientists.
So just a meaningless number unrelated to anything that happens on the surface or in the atmosphere.
700mb is in the atmosphere. And it is correlated to what happens at the surface.
The sun 9sn’t anywhere near the surface, and it sure is related to what hapens on the surface. Clouds are well above much on the ground, yet have great significance with respect to temperature.
Data regarding such is useful to understading weather and climate, as are the temperatures at various layers of the atmosphere.
For example, the long term cooling of the lower troposphere is evidence (a ‘fingerprint’) of greenhouse warming.
Interannual variability of surface and LT temperatures are very tightly correlated. Long term trends a bit less so, and short term trends even less so. The comparisons can be useful, but no one is saying LT temps are also surface temps.
You mean long term cooling of the upper troposphere?
Actually I mean cooling in the mid to upper stratosphere, having forgotten that ozone depletion is tied to lower stratospheric cooling, and it’s difficult to separate out the relative contributions in that layer.
As far as I’m aware the upper TROPOSPHERE is warming.
Yes, Roy’s tropopause trend seems to be +0.02 C/decade.
Can anyone explain the Mudflood Theory to me? As I understand it there was a cataclysmic globe-wide event of biblical proportions for which, conveniently, there is no recorded evidence. The mud was caused by a natural event by liquefaction/mud volcanoes/fell from the sky/rose uphill from the sea/sentient mud. The event happened in the mid-19th century/1812/1815/2-300 years ago/every couple of hundred years.
The mud was caused by man-made means by sound weapons/nuclear fusion/plasma weapons, the instigators being, or combinations of, the Illuminati/bankers/NASA.
The evidence is based purely on research from You Tube videos, google pics of basements that make no sense, no builder would do that, you only ever build on level ground, no Architect would design that. Any basement building regardless of whether they fit in with any of the above timelines even less than 10 years old are evidence, anything that does not fit into any of the timelines can be simply explained away as lies, however any evidence from a similar source that fits into any of the timelines can be accepted as the absolute unquestionable truth.
High values of galactic radiation indicate a very weak solar wind.
ttps://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Sorry.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
The axle is attached to the frame and the frame is sitting on the ground. The wheel is held in position by the weight of the valve. The wheel and axle are either stationary if you look at them from ClintRs viewpoint or rotating every 23 hours 56 minutes relative to the stars(24 hours relative to the Sun)
Either way the wheel and axle both share the Earth’s rotation rate and the wheel will not rotate on the axle.
Which reveals the months of pointless haggling about the moons rotation as being about a distinction without a difference. It all depends on whether you define the axis as rotating or not.
dan…”Which reveals the months of pointless haggling about the moons rotation as being about a distinction without a difference. It all depends on whether you define the axis as rotating or not”.
No, Dan, the point of the Moon debate is to demonstrate that climate alarmists lack the ability to use good scientific logic. They lack the same scientific logic in their support of the inane anthropogenic theory.
The debate has nothing to do with definition of axes or any other definition. It was originally stated by JD (not binny) as a simple statement: the Moon does not rotate on its axis. He made it clear the axis in question was the local axis through the Moon about which it would rotate if it did rotate.
The alarmists have used every type of argument to get around the simplicity of the obvious. They have tried inertial frames, appeals to authority, ad homs, and insults. They have even tried re-defining rotation.
Exactly.
It’s a frame of reference problem.
The non-rotators have chosen the only frame of reference in which the Moon does not rotate. The rest of us regard this as a special case and prefer a Sun-based or inertial frame of reference.
Let’s use polar coordinates (r, a) where r is radius and a is angle.
1)Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the center of mass of the moon and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. In reality, it is not.
2) Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the Earth/moon barycenter and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (a motion known as "orbiting", or "revolving"), and not rotating on its own axis.
You have to "zoom out" your inertial reference frame from 1) to 2) in order to have the complete picture, such that you can "see" the moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Frame #2 does not go through the Moon’s center of mass so it is not in reference to “its own axis”. Thus that frame cannot be used to answer questions regarding the Moon’s rotation about its own axis. Frame #1 is acceptable though. And the angular velocity in this frame happens to be 2.6e-6 rad/s which is non-zero.
You cannot judge if the moon is rotating on its own axis or not from Frame 1).
Consider a wooden horse securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round. The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. It is not physically possible for the wooden horse to rotate on its own axis, since it is securely bolted to the floor.
If you looked at that from a Frame 1) type reference frame, with r=0 going through the center of mass of the horse, it would appear to be rotating on its own axis. However, we already know that in reality it physically cannot do so. If you “zoom out” your inertial reference frame to a Frame 2) type, you get to see the bigger picture. There you can see that the wooden horse is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
You have that backwards. Frame #1 is the only frame by which you can answer questions regarding the angular velocity of the Moon about its own axis. Its the same situation with the wooden horse on a mgr. If you “zoom out” (which is just a euphemism for changing the position of the r=0) and use a different frame you are then no longer answering questions regarding that body’s angular velocity about its own axis.
We’ve already determined the crux of the debate here. The debate centers around the disagreement of the definition of “rotate about its own axis”. Astronomers define this as angular velocity in a frame where r=0 goes through the center of mass and a=0 is fixed to a distant point. That definition has been around for hundreds of years and is accepted nearly everyone (sans a few posters on this blog) so it’ll be an exercise in futility and frustration trying to convince everyone to change.
That’s correct bdgwx, DREMT has it always backwards. DREMT is a backwards warrior as demonstrated elsewhere. DREMT’s writing insisting the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis means the universe of stars is observed to rotate about the moon. DREMT’s argument is backwards being thoroughly defeated long ago and continually defeated around here as you do.
My previous comment refutes your response.
What would you do to determine the Earth is spinning on its axis? Would you put the origin in the sun?
No, you would put it thru the Earths cm.
Same for moon
#2
My previous comment refutes your response.
DREMT, where are you thinking we should put the r=0 point to determine Earth’s “rotation about it’s own axis” if not through Earth’s center of mass?
You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT,
Well in that frame the average angular velocity of points on Earth’s surface is 1.99e-7 rad/s which works out to 8765.8 hours. Do you really think the Earth spins once on its own axis once every ~8766 hours?
BTW…the figure I calculated for angular velocity is the average because in the frame you selected all points on Earth have changing angular velocities. Points nearest the Sun even have negative velocities in this frame. Don’t you find it odd that this frame gives you varying quantities of angular velocity for Earth’s “rotation about its own axis”?
#2
You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.
Right…so the Earth spins once on its own axis every ~8766 hours? That’s your final answer?
The discussion always has to be on your terms, doesn’t it, bdgwx? How about you respond to what I am saying, instead of attacking obvious and ridiculous straw men about the length of a day!?
You’re saying put r=0 through the center of the Sun right? That’s what I’m responding to.
I am saying this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-550107
Do not bother responding unless you are actually going to discuss specifically what I said in that comment. That means the bit after the first sentence.
Yeah. You say…
You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
So I do that and I get an average angular velocity for points on Earth of 1.99e-7 rad/s.
Are you disagreeing with this figure?
That means the bit after the first sentence.
“You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.”
You can then see that the Moon presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
There fixed that for you!
Except the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun, so looking at it the way you have just described makes no sense.
If you judge that the Earth is rotating on its own axis by the fact that it presents all of its sides to the sun, then you should judge if the moon rotates on its own axis by whether or not the moon presents all of its sides to the Earth. It does not, therefore it is not rotating on its own axis.
Bob complicating it isn’t helping you. Just adding to your confusion.
Find a science paper that supports your point of view with a discussion of why the view you hold is a preferable view and at least you will be in the discussion as science moves forward. Either that or it leaves without you.
DREMT said: That means the bit after the first sentence.
We can certainly discuss the other stuff if you like. But if your definition of Earth’s “rotation about its own axis” is to use radius r=0 fixed to the center of the Sun and results in a rotational period of ~8766 hours then we’re already at a cross roads. I guess I’m one those people that accepts that Earth’s own axis should…ya know…go through Earth’s center of mass and not the Sun and that Earth’s rotational period is actually ~23.93 hours and not ~8766 hours.
bdgwx, the Earth’s axis does indeed go through the center of mass of the Earth, and I am not arguing otherwise. Obviously, I do not think that the Earth rotates on its own axis once every 8766 hours. So, what are you missing? You are missing that I am not discussing how to calculate Earth’s angular velocity. I understand that you are very keen to discuss that, yourself, but try to grasp that other people have different intentions when they bring up a subject.
I have been discussing why the moon issue is not simply a frame of reference problem. Most people who argue that the moon issue is a frame of reference problem argue that the inertial reference frame is the correct frame of reference to use to determine if the moon is rotating on its own axis, or not. I am merely pointing out that there is not just one “inertial reference frame”. You can have an inertial reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon. You can also have an inertial reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the Earth/moon barycenter.
The second point is, if you focus on the reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon, you lose the necessary context to determine whether the moon is actually rotating on its own axis, as opposed to merely rotating about an external axis (and not on its own axis). By “zooming out”, and focussing on the reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the Earth/moon barycenter, you are then able to make that judgement. Or, to put it another way:
“You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.”
Bill and DREMPTY,
You guys totally missed the point.
I’ll repeat my post and explain what I meant in more detail.
XXXYou can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.XXX
You can then see that the Moon presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
There fixed that for you!
DREMTY tried to show that the Earth is spinning by comparing it to a non-inertial reference frame. Stating that the Earth rotates because it presents all sides to the Sun, is false because that is a non-inertial reference frame.
The way to determine whether something is rotating is to compare it to an inertial reference frame.
So DREMPTY just doubles down on stupid
“Except the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun, so looking at it the way you have just described makes no sense.
If you judge that the Earth is rotating on its own axis by the fact that it presents all of its sides to the sun, then you should judge if the moon rotates on its own axis by whether or not the moon presents all of its sides to the Earth. It does not, therefore it is not rotating on its own axis.”
So your premise is wrong, that makes your conclusion not proven.
But since the Moon presents all sides to a point in an inertial reference frame, that means that the Moon rotates.
“But since the Moon presents all sides to a point in an inertial reference frame, that means that the Moon rotates.”
blob, the sun is no more “a point in an inertial reference frame” than is the Earth.
“Stating that the Earth rotates because it presents all sides to the Sun, is false because that is a non-inertial reference frame.”
Wrong. A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun is an inertial reference frame. From such a reference frame, you can see if the Earth presents all sides to the sun or not. It does, 365.25 times over.
bdgwx, the earth does have a one year rotation around the sun and the rotation is defined as the mean axial tilt as it precesses around perpendicular to the pole of the ecliptic. that would be in addition 365.25 annual spins on its axis.
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun is an inertial reference frame.”
To clarify this, I will add:
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun and a=0 points towards some distant star is an inertial reference frame”.
DREMPTY,
Nope, the Sun at your r=0 is not an inertial reference frame because the Sun is rotating around the Milky Way galaxy, so it is accelerating, therefore not an inertial reference frame.
Pick another reference frame, try and figure out what an inertial reference frame is.
You are failing so far.
And the cherry on the cake, is that in two successive posts you contradict your self!
“blob, the sun is no more “a point in an inertial reference frame” than is the Earth.”
Versus
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun is an inertial reference frame.”
How can you keep coming to be shown that you are wrong time and time again.
I agree with bdgwx on what constitutes an inertial reference frame. Once again, you can argue it out with him.
Plus, there is no contradiction between my two statements. I will clarify this one for you:
“blob, the sun is no more or less “a point in an inertial reference frame” than is the Earth.”
DREMPTY,
So if this is true
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun and a=0 points towards some distant star is an inertial reference frame.”
It’s not, but for now, that means, that since the Moon rotates with respect to that reference frame, it means the Moon is spinning on its axis.
Since it doesn’t keep one face towards the Sun, now does it.
Keep on losing.
To compare like for like, you must compare the Earth orbiting the sun from a reference frame in which r=0 goes through the sun, with the moon orbiting the Earth from a reference frame in which r=0 goes through the Earth. Both of those are inertial reference frames when in each case a=0 is pointed at some distant star.
DREMPTY,
bdgwx is using a non-inertial reference frame for his arguments, and you are calling those reference frames inertial.
So I am not making the same argument as bdgwx, but I am not in disagreement with his arguments.
You can use a non-inertial reference frame to prove that the Moon is spinning, that is a more rigorous argument than saying the Moon doesn’t face the same direction all the time, therefore it is spinning.
You need to look up the difference between a non-inertial and an inertial reference frame.
“bdgwx is using a non-inertial reference frame for his arguments, and you are calling those reference frames inertial.”
We are both discussing the same frames. They are certainly not “non-inertial reference frames”.
If bdgwx is willing to concede that the frame in which r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon and a=0 is pointed at some distant star is a “non-inertial reference frame”, then great. I would love to hear that from him. I could then use that to argue against MikeR and his gifs.
Only kidding.
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will soon be split.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f24.png
Re calibrating thermometers etc.
There are people who are apparently using so-called air temperatures to claim that the Earth is warming. A dodgy inference at best.
However, measuring air temperature is itself a very tricky exercise. Thermometers measure their own temperature, which may or may not be the temperature of the surrounding air.
Far worse, the thermometers in use have not been calibrated using air of a known temperature. Historical temperatures are generally based on thermometers calibrated against liquids of a known temperature, or a reference thermometer so calibrated.
So air temperatures are an exercise in wishful thinking, if accuracy is required. Air temperatures are taken in the shade, and essentially represent the radiative temperature of the inside of the shading structure.
Trying to compare absolute temperatures from different measuring systems is just silly. As an example, John Tyndall expressed his comparative measurements of heat radiation in degrees of rotation of a magnetic needle, which he spent some months trying to find a null position which would give equivalent readings, both positive and negative.
At least Dr Spencer appears to be aiming for reproducibility and consistency, in a comparative sense. The measurements of Brahe and Kepler (and others) were enough to demonstrate that Newtons Law of Gravitation was valid. First the measurement, then the curiosity. Look for existing reasons. If there dont seem to be any that fit, take a guess and see if experiments support it.
Easy?
Well Norman, if you believe you can respond as an adult, then tell us which of the following cult beliefs you either support or disavow?
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Let’s see if you can perform as a responsible adult.
Not sure what is meant by “ice can warm sunshine”. However if you have both ice emitting energy and sunshine reaching the same surface, the surface will reach a higher temperature than it would with just sunshine or just ice.
The two ice cubes is not reasonable and no one has made such a claim. Two ice cubes, at the same temperature, will emit more energy to the surroundings than one ice cube.
Sun and 800,000 K is not intended to be any real world phenomena. It was just a demonstration of an abstract idea. You should not take abstract concepts and confuse them with real world physics.
I have Moon rotation fatigue. It is obvious you and DREMT or Gordon Robertson will continue to believe what you do. I realize that no amount of debate will change this so I drop out of that endless debate.
The Earth’s surface with the GHE alone would be much warmer than 288 K. It would exceed the 303 K you came up with. Convection and evaporation keep the surface much cooler.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
I don’t know what your last one means or indicates. “Magic” turning one flux to another. I have no idea where you got that one from.
By the way your twin is posting again on PSI blog. You might be interested to know that someone else thinks like you do
https://principia-scientific.com/audio-recording-this-is-why-they-wont-debate-me/#comment-41518
norman…”However if you have both ice emitting energy and sunshine reaching the same surface, the surface will reach a higher temperature than it would with just sunshine or just ice”.
You continue to cling to that textbook nonsense that shows two bodies of different temperature interception the radiation of the other having a two way effect on heat transfer.
Tell me something, have you ever seen a practical example of this used in a real problem? No. They always use hypothetical examples with no values that can be measured.
They can’t be measured for a couple of reasons:
1)There is no instrument that can measure a two-way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.
2)Quantum theory explains that electrons in a hotter body are at too high an energy level to be affected by radiation from electrons in a cooler body.
That backs the 2nd law which also claims heat can never, by its own means be transferred cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson
You are ignorant.
1) Yes a handheld IR instrument definitely measures two way flow of energy (you keep changing the key word to HEAT which is not claimed!). You can take an IR measuring device and point it at a hot object and it will give you some temperature reading (use a normal thermometer to confirm this reading to see how close your IR instrument is to the thermometer value). Now turn the IR device 180 degrees to the colder object. It cannot receive any IR from the hotter object in this configuration, the energy is coming from the colder object. Measure the temperature of the colder object with a thermometer to determine the temperature of the colder object. Your point is just wrong on all levels. Read a textbook it might help you.
2) NO QUANTUM theory Does not say that. Only you do. You make up things and then think they are true. I have gone over this you many times, why do you bring it up with me. You don’t understand chemical bonds, how they work what goes on in molecular vibrations.
Gordon Robertson
Read this to try and understand molecular vibrations.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-mcc-organicchemistry/chapter/infrared-spectroscopy/
Chemists identify unknown compounds by using IR spectroscopy. They can tell the type of bonds in a compound based upon what IR bands are absorbed.
Will Gordon get it this time?
Place your bets.
Gordon,
You are talking about atomic orbitals.
In polyatomic molecules and solids there are molecular orbitals that are able to abbbbbsorb the lower energy radiation from colder objects.
Were way beyond Bohr here, you should study up.
N,
Your appeal to the authority of Dr Spencer falls flat.
He wrote –
* The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earth�s surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation. *
One does does not logically follow from the other. The Kiel-Trenberth cartoon is nonsensical, of course. Radiative intensity may have little to do with the temperature of the emitter. Pointing an IR thermometer at the sky is meaningless. The instrument merely measured the heat it receives, directing it through less atmosphere results in a lower reading. Lowering towards the horizon increases the amount of heat from a greater thickness of atmosphere. And so it goes.
His definition of the GHE is insufficient. His initial assumptions are faulty, and some of his statements do not accord with observed fact. Like John Tyndall, he may have changed his views during the intervening years, as new information came to light.
Your other comments just indicate your general level of ignorance. Learn some physics. Face reality. Submerging an ice cube in a bowl of water warmed by the sun will not result in the waters temperature increasing. The ice is radiating thermal energy, but it has no heating effect on a hotter body. Reality.
Swenson
Dr. Spencer did an actual experiment, REALITY, showing your ideas are NOT reality. They are some made up version of your deluded reality you think it correct. Your examples of ice cubes in warmer material are not valid to what is being stated. They are a false presentation of valid concepts that you are not able to understand because you HAVE not and probably never will learn physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
One obvious problem with so many arguments you contrarians bring up proving cold cannot increase the temperture of a heated object deal with room temperature surroundings. And in this case ice would NOT increase the temperature of a heated object. The walls surrounding the heated object are emitting more IR toward the object than the ice would and the ice would block this greater energy with its own lesser energy and hence cool the object in these surroundings. If the surrounding were far colder than the ice, then the presence of ice and sunshine would increase the temperature of the heated object. You have to understand the whole problem and not just a couple segments.
Swenson, like ClintR and Gordon Robertson you are just not a very smart person. Posters can attempt to explain the science but you are not capable of understanding what is being said.
Norman, your mission was to tell us “which of the following cult beliefs you either support or disavow”. I knew you couldn’t answer as a responsible adult. You’re still trying to have it both ways. You’re trying to dodge reality, instead of facing it.
Notice I can answer clearly and succinctly: All six beliefs are bogus.
See how easy it is.
ClintR
In your limited thinking ability and lack of logical thought process they are wrong. In real world physics the correct answers are more complex. I can’t explain them to you. You are not smart enough to understand anything about science and you hold strong opinions on issues regardless if they be wrong and bad physics.
I did attempt to reason with you. It will always be a failed attempt. You are not smart enough to grasp the ideas and are very limited in thought and you also tend to form irrational conclusions based upon limited understanding of the topic of discussion.
As I said you are not a smart person.
Norman, we know you can go on forever, typing and insulting, but can you own up to the nonsense your cult puts out?
Notice I can make a clear statement: “All six beliefs are bogus”.
You either have to clearly accept the cult beliefs, or reject them. But, you can’t do it because you know two ice cubes aren’t going to be hotter than one. You don’t understand science, but you know two ice cubes aren’t going to raise each other to a higher temperature. But, you won’t reject your cult beliefs. If you did, you would have nothing else to cling to.
ClintR
There is no nonsense and NO CULT. Science is opposite of cult thinking. Science is established by evidence and facts. I have already presented you with sufficient evidence that the energy from a colder object can increase the temperature of a heated object. This is an established fact verified by experiment. Again is shows you are not very smart. You can’t understand evidence and rely only on your confused opinions on things. I spent time explaining your points. I can’t do more than that. You can’t understand what I post so why do you persist in posting about these matters?
I have never claimed two ice cubes are hotter than one. Two ice cubes emit more energy than one. That is a fact. Why would two ice cubes raise each others temperature? They both emit and absorb the same amount. You need to continuously supply new energy to the ice to maintain a temperature or they will cool off.
Again you demonstrate illogical and irrational thinking. You believe that legitimate science is a Cult but the reality is your brand of thinking is the only Cult around. You make statements (largely just your illogical opinions on science) and think they are absolute truths. You do not accept any evidence that proves you opinions wrong. Yes you are the classic definition of cult mentality. Science is not.
Here is information on Cults
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Your posts are cult mentality. You do not think the moon rotates one time as it completes an orbit. This is established physics that only cults question. You don’t accept the well founded heat transfer equation between objects. Again this is cult mentality.
Most your posts are cult-like. You never support any of what you claim. Just opinions and beliefs and mostly opposed to established physics (that is actually based on experiments and observations with logical rational thought and expressed in the language of mathematics).
Yes Norman, we know you belong to a cult. That’s why you can’t reject their beliefs.
ClintR
Again you prove you are not smart. Nor are you logical. I linked you to the current understanding of cults. You are not logical or smart enough to apply this understanding to posters on this blog.
The logical view is you are a cult minded person belonging to a contrarian cult that opposes established views regardless of evidence.
In logical thought you would not call someone belonging to a cult that understands established physics, can reason ideas with rational thought process, relies on evidence to support their views (something you do not do). Logically you belong to a cult of contrarian thought (you are not the only one who thinks like you do) and logically I do not. I follow real world evidence. You should try it some time.
Norman, you can’t convince anyone you’re not a braindead cultist if you can’t reject the cult nonsense:
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Your endless typing fits won’t convince anyone, except your other cult members.
Reject the nonsense and accept reality.
ClintR
I already addressed all those with this post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549166
Wrong again, Norman.
All you’ve done is your usual “blah-blah” evasion. Your mission was to tell us “which of the following cult beliefs you either support of disavow”. But, you can’t do that.
If you reject the nonsense, then you admit you have been an idiot. If you accept the nonsense, then you admit you are an idiot.
You can’t win when you fight reality.
ClintR
Once again it is obvious you are not a smart person. You think I am evading your list when I actually answered them in intelligent and logical fashion using known existing physics. I cannot be blamed that you lack intelligence to understand the answers I have given you.
Nomran, once again you are evading the issue.
Any responsible person could quickly deny that nonsense. But, you can’t. You can’t leave your cult.
tim folkerts and skeptic…Tim…”A string DOES force the same face toward the center.
Gravity DOES NOT force the same face toward the center”.
Skeptic… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX
The first animation shows what the moon looks like if it was not rotating on its own axis (0:06 to 0:24) Thats called translation”.
********
In Tim’s post he claims correctly that gravity acts on all sides of the hemisphere facing the Earth, hence no torque to produce spin (local rotation). Remember, gravity acts in a relatively static field while a string on a ball acts at one point only. The motion of the ball, however, does emulate that of the Moon if the downward force of gravity is disregarded. The string not only supplies angular momentum for the ball it raises it against gravity.
In Skeptic’s vid, they show a depiction of the Moon in orbit with the same hemisphere always pointed toward the Earth, yet they claim it rotates exactly once about its axis per orbit.
Can they not see the obvious? The inner face and the outer face are always moving parallel to each other, meaning they can never rotate about the axis since it is moving parallel to the inner and outer faces.
This is curvilinear translation not rotation about an axis.
WRONG GORDON.
Gordon STILL has not learned what curvilinear translation is. The seat of a ferris wheel is an example of curvilinear translation.
“Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves”
[ http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Yes. The inner and outer face are moving parallel to each other in the vid you referenced. HOWEVER. The outermost point on that moon and innermost point are NOT moving on congruent curves, therefor they are NOT exhibiting curvilinear translation. Those two points are moving on concentric curves.
The demarcation line between the red and white areas of that moon rotate one time wrt the inertial reference frame, and that rotation is about its own axis.
You really need to study a kinematics text book, because you CONTINUALLY screw up kinematic definitions.
binny…”nothing implies that temperature estimates coming from data collected at about 4 km altitude must reproduce surface temperatures, let alone at sea surface”.
This cements in my mind that you are an effing idiot, not just for the post cited above but for your entire denigration of Roy’s work in your post You have no idea how the instrumentation works and you are regurgitating nonsense from the likes of Barry.
The instruments on the sat are sensitive to frequencies generated by oxygen at any altitude. The frequencies generated are proportional to temperature and the temperature profile of the atmosphere wrt altitude is well known.
You can’t have a separate instrument for each frequency generated so the frequencies of all O2 emissions are sampled by the instruments. However, the instrument receivers are set up to sample emissions in frequency bands (channels) and each receiver receives frequencies centred at a certain frequency. That means adjacent receiver channels will sample the same frequencies which can be compared to the centre frequencies.
The waveforms produced in each frequency band are called weighting functions for some reason. I presume it means that various frequencies are weighted according to the centre frequency of each channel. Channel 5 receives O2 emissions right down to the surface but you cannot measure it directly, You have to measure it through an algorithm proportional to the centre frequency level and known frequencies expected at each altitude.
That does not mean, as you stupidly suggest, that all UAH data is measured over a 4 kilometre altitude. The surface O2 emissions are measured at or near the surface, just as surface station boxes measure atmospheric temperature at various altitudes.
The difference is that the sats can measure temperatures where there are no surface stations, at all altitudes and surface areas.
Robertson
A>s usual, you behave as a complete ignorant, buttkissing Mr Spencer where he even wouldn’t agree with you!
Why don’t you try to inform yourself instead of pretending your utter egocentric nonsense?
The longer your comments, the less useful contents they show, independently of what you write about: Moon’s spin, troposphere, Clausius, viruses, Einstein, etc etc.
Stop filling this blog with your endless bullshit!
J.-P. D.
JD, are you trying to copy Norman? You sound just like him — no facts, only opinions and hatred.
You need a better role model.
Gordon is saying that the satellite MSU instruments that UAH rely on for their atmospheric temperature data also provide global surface temperature data.
This is patently false, as even Roy Spencer has said. Bindidon is right to castigate Gordon for continually pushing this msinformation.
Roy Spencer:
“For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, 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 (its ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such 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.”
rich will…”The instruments on the satellite are calibrated but the process of inferring a surface or near temperature from those calibrated instruments is a fiddle that needs calibration or validation against inset measurement. That is the fundamental problem with remote sensing; the process infers a temperature rather than actually measuring a temperature”.
What do you think a mercury thermometer does? It measures expansion of mercury in a vial. Temperature was invented by humans based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. It is a measure of heat which is the kinetic energy of atoms.
What does it matter how you infer temperature? It is a measure of heat and as such any measure that works compared to the freezing/boiling point of water will work.
It just so happens that oxygen emits microwave radiation near 60 Ghz and the frequency varies with the temperature of the oxygen. So, O2 near the surface will emit at a frequency commensurate with the lower altitude whereas O2 at 4 km will radiate a different frequency, again, commensurate with altitude.
It’s a matter of collecting this data and relating it to the altitude from which it was collected. The temperatures inferred have been compared to radiosonde data and there is a good match.
Gordo continues to demonstrate his lack of understanding of science. The emissions from O2 molecules occur in bands centered on one frequency, which does not change with temperature. What does happen is that the O2 bands exhibit “pressure broadening”, which is to say, there is greater emission from the sides of the bands at higher pressure than at lower pressure. It’s the emissions from these higher pressure, lower altitude regions which are measured by the MSU 2, because they can exit the top of the atmosphere, and this frequency is used to calculate the UAH MT. The same is true for MSU 3 used for the UAH TP and MSU 4 used for the UAH LS products. These instruments measured radiance at specific frequencies which is said to be a function of the black body emissions and therefore represent “bulk temperature”, i.e., a weighted average from the entire atmosphere. For example, the UAH MT emission profile includes some radiance from the surface and the Stratosphere, as well as that near the pressure height of peak weighting.
One thing is for sure: in mid-latitudes, dry air cannot trap rapid heat radiation into space during winter (due to the large vertical temperature gradient).
Sorry you are all wrong about bike wheels.
The bearings in my thirty year old bike finally collapsed in the summer and my wheel will not spin at all.
Now we need to discuss if technically and functionally speaking it’s still a wheel, Mark! 🙂
So you are riding along in a straight line on your bike, and you push the handlebar forward on one side and backward on the other side.
This introduces an unstable condition where the front wheel is now rotating on four difference axes.
One of two things will happen, the bike will adjust and continue rotating on three axes, or a chaotic situation will arise when it all rotates on five different axes which will conclude with the wheel rotating on one axis and your brand new spandex bike shirt will be ripped to shreds.
Gordon Robertson
Since you are not able to accept the concepts of brilliant chemists on the nature of molecular vibrational energy I bring to you Linus Pauling. I have his book General Chemistry printed by Dover Press.
Page 369. Quote: “We have so far discussed the quantum states of motion corresponding to five of six degrees of freedom of the hydrogen chloride molecule: the three translational and two rotational degrees of freedom. The motion associated with the sixth degree of freedom, the distance r between the tow nuclei, is the vibrational motion of two nuclei relative to one another, or, more accurately, their synchronous vibrational motion relative to the center of mass.”
I hope that you at least consider what Linus Pauling says. There is more in the book but it has figures and explanations. If this does not work for you then nothing will.
Can anyone explain to me the theory behind using jade amulets to protect from Covid-19 decease? It seems legit.
There is a new study, Can Traditional Chinese Medicine provide insights into controlling the COVID-19 pandemic: Serpentinization-induced lithospheric long-wavelength magnetic anomalies in Proterozoic bedrocks in a weakened geomagnetic field mediate the aberrant transformation of biogenic molecules in COVID-19 via magnetic catalysis.
The studys first author is Moses Bility, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health who studies infectious disease.
Bility and his group connected the February and March timingclose to the spring equinox, which he says is associated with changes in the geomagnetic fieldto that of rising COVID-19 case numbers in the US. In the paper, he and his coauthors propose that SARS-CoV-2 is a preexisting, endogenous virus in the human genome that is reawakened by the effects of changes in the Earths magnetic field, but that the virus doesnt cause the pathology seen in COVID-19. Rather, they suggest, the disease comes about due to other chemical reactions in the body catalyzed by the magnetic field. Asked whether the SARS-CoV-2 sequence has been found in the human genome, Bility says, Im not a genomic expert. That was just something I did want to look at, but I did not look at that.
The study also suggests, without experimental evidence, that jade amulets might protect wearers by countering the effects of the long-wavelength anomalies, an idea Bility says he based on records of practices by ancient people in China and elsewhere during a period when geomagnetic conditions were similar to what they are now.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 3, 2020 at 2:40 PM
“The moon is not rotating”
on its own axis.
Nate says:
November 5, 2020 at 6:40 AM
Newton:
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
”””””””””””””””””””
One of you has to be wrong, but who?
DREMT is correct.
Nate is taking Newton out of context. Newton was referring to Moon’s orbital motion. The orbital motion confuses idiots like Nate. They believe because Moon would “appear” to be rotating about its axis, if viewed from outside the orbit, that it really is rotating about its axis. They get fooled by the appearance, and by the fact that many organizations and institutions have never corrected the mistakes made by Cassini, centuries ago. It’s not a high priority, because an “apparent” motion does not affect anything.
But the interesting thing about the discussion is the fight the idiots will put up to reject reality. That’s why they’re idiots.
“Moon would “appear” to be rotating about its axis…”
___________________________
It IS rotating.
Once as it orbits the planet.
Thats called “synchronous rotation” or “bound rotation”.
Best wishes to USA. Germany suffers with You.
Fritz Kraut.
Is the ball on a string rotating about its axis?
It has that appearance, but it is not actually rotaing about its axis. If it were, the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Obviously you have not been following all of the comments here.
“Is the ball on a string rotating about its axis?”
____________________________
It ist.
Same as the hammer when hammer-throwing. And same as moon when orbiting. And all of them keep their rotation, after released.
One more time, just to give you a chance to avoid being an idiot:
“It has that appearance, but it is not actually rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would be wrapping around the ball.“
ClintR, wrong statement 8:28am yet again, corrected statement of observation: If ball was rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Ball4, wrong statement 10:22am yet again, corrected statement of observation: If ball was rotating on its own axis at all, the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Which is not observed DREMT 11:08, go ahead you can at least trust your own eyes, the ball rotates once on its own axis per rev. and the string does not wrap since your eyes are not lying to you, like many of your comments.
Which is not observed Ball4 1:59, go ahead you can at least trust your own eyes, the ball does not rotate on its own axis, and the string does not wrap since your eyes are not lying to you, like many of your comments.
Great imitation of the backwards warrior DREMT which can be done; however all sane warriors prefer to ride their horses facing forward. Especially the mgr horses turning once on their own axis per orbit.
Great imitation of the backwards warrior Ball4 which can be done; however all sane warriors prefer to ride their horses facing forward. Especially the mgr horses not rotating on their own axis whilst orbiting.
Our resident clown states:
“If ball was rotating on its own axis at all, the string would be wrapping around the ball.”
So that means that with a non-rotating ball, the string would not wrap around it per Dr Empty. Let the ball on a string translate around the circular orbit. One can see right away that with the ball held at the same orientation throughout its orbit, the string will wrap around the ball, which is not rotating on its axis, because its translating. So wrong-way, backwards Dr Empty loses again.
SGW again confirms that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout the orbit. Thanks, SGW.
Poor Backwards, wrong-way Dr Empty sees everything backwards, which is why he cannot understand what translation is. He’s confused because he does not use the inertial reference frame. He’s just plain backwards and wrong.
When Dr Emp T makes a left turn in his car, he thinks he’s going straight and the road is rotating under him. I don’t know how he can drive a vehicle.
Regardless of reference frame, a ball on a string is an example of pure rotation. It satisfies the requirements of Madhavi Fig. 2(b). It is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
No responses so far, from anybody that I am responding to…
”
The issue is far more fundamental than any of that.”
DREMT tries to escape to
his comfort zone, when caught in a free fall from reality.
His model cannot explain the observations, so he he simply denies them!
What could be more fundamental than that?! The idea that theory MUST explain observations.
At least the major religions understand that their beliefs are not testable with science.
The TEAM fails to even understand that.
#2
No responses so far, from anybody that I am responding to…
ClintR says:
November 6, 2020 at 8:28 AM
but it is not actually rotating about its axis.
__________________________________
Of course moon ist rotating around its rotation axis. Otherwise it had none. And without rotation axis it had no poles. Or do you also deny the moon poles?
Astronomers (mostly) believe the moon rotates on its own axis, so of course they have decided where on the moon they believe this axis passes through (based on how the moon moves in its orbit), and thus they have determined the location of a North and South Pole. So, yes, these poles exist, in the sense that they are physical locations on the moon which the astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole. But the “axis” passing through them – the moon does not rotate about it. The moon only orbits (rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter)
DREMT’s comment means the moon does not rotate about own axis, it is the universe of stars and galaxies et. al. rotates around the moon. The moon only orbits (rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter), it’s the universe that is rotating about the moon. Wrong as usual DREMT.
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 7, 2020 at 7:09 AM
“Astronomers (mostly) believe the moon rotates on its own axis, so of course they have decided where on the moon they believe this axis passes through…”
_____________________________________
My question was not, what You believe what astronomers believe.
Poles of any planet or moon are clearly defined as intersection of surface and axis of rotation. Astronomers KNOW it. Its not a matter of believe.
Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles or do You not?
Simple question.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 7, 2020 at 10:19 AM
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
______________________________________
Ball4 made a good point.
Either the skyglobe is rotating, or the moon is rotating.
No the skyglobe is not rotating. The moon is rotating around the COG of earth.
If the moon is rotating on its own axis the sky globe isn’t rotating but it would entail the earth orbiting the moon instead of vice versa that we know to be the case. . . .for several reasons
bill gets it right, Fritz gets it wrong.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 10:01 AM
bill gets it right, Fritz gets it wrong.
____________________________________________
Fritz is still waiting for an answer to his simple question. Again: “Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles…?”
Yes or No?
And of course bill is right, when he states, that moon is orbiting round the earth. But that was not the point.
Yes, there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole. No, the moon does not rotate about the “axis” passing between these Poles.
As bill tried to explain to you, but you have misconstrued, the moon does not rotate on its own axis (its own center of mass), it rotates instead about the Earth. It is rotating about an axis that is external to the body of the moon. Such a motion involves the same face of the body remaining oriented towards the external axis whilst it moves. In other words, the moon is only orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis.
The moon only orbits.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 12:38 PM
Yes, there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole….
__________________________
Why do you avoid a straight and clear answer?
Third time: “Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles…?”
YOUR opinion please.
“Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles?”
OK, I will answer your question for the third time. No, I do not deny the existence of the moon’s Poles, because there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Poles. However, the moon does not rotate about the “axis” passing between those Poles.
I am happy to repeat this answer as many times as you wish to repeat the question.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 2:01 PM
No, I do not deny the existence of the moon’s Poles
_________________________________
So You finally cant deny the axis of rotation.
Without axis of rotation there would be no poles.
And without rotation, there would be no axis of rotation.
Fritz from the stars a pony on a merry-go-round looks like it rotating. And it is, but not on its own axis but on the axis of the merry-go-round.
Fritz is funny. I repeat the exact same response to him three times, and on the third time he acts like something has changed. Once again:
Yes, there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole. No, the moon does not rotate about the “axis” passing between these Poles.
” axis, so of course they have decided where on the moon they believe this axis passes through (based on how the moon moves in its orbit), and thus they have determined the location of a North and South Pole.”
The poles that are observed and located behave just like our poles. They are the coldest, darkest places on the Moon. They point to the same stars during an entire orbit. Where they point precesses as predicted by physics for an axis.
So Poles are not belief-based like a relgion. Weird. They are observable facts. They can be falsified, but thus far you guys have failed to do that.
Nate continues to blow hot air without a single reference.
Take a bicycle wheel which is a good simulation of the gyroscopic effect of an orbiting tire.
So without scientific references and a paper defining precession as only applying to a rotation on an internal axis is just so much hot air and completely and absolutely unsupported.
Here is a description of a geosynchronous satellite precessing around 3 axes. Its own, the ecliptic, and moon’s orbit axis.
https://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2013/Orbital_Debris/ROSENGREN.pdf
Start with the last sentence on the first page.
Also,
https://youtu.be/bzbVwiIeM0M
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 5:06 PM
Fritz is funny. I repeat the exact same response to him three times
__________________________________
Three times you repeated the same. But never You answered my question.
I did ask You, if You admit the existence of moon poles. But You always talked something about places, “labeled” by astronomers as “Poles”. Thats not what I asked for and uninteresting.
Astronomers dont “label” any poles. They “identify” it. A pole IS a pole, however someone labels it.
You realy dont know the difference between, for example, earths northpole and the city named and labeled on maps as “North Pole” in Alaska?
So in Your thinking the earth must have at least THREE poles: One in Antarcica, one in the Arctic Sea, and one in Alaska.
Why dont You just ask Dr Spencer? He knows it. I am certain.
“You realy dont know the difference between, for example, earths northpole and the city named and labeled on maps as “North Pole” in Alaska?”
Yes, I know the difference, thank you for asking.
The difference between the Earth and the moon is that the Earth really does have Poles, because the Earth is rotating on its own axis. The moon does not really have any Poles, because the moon is not rotating in its own axis.
“The moon does not really have any Poles, because the moon is not rotating in its own axis.”.
Something observable doesnt fit with my belief?
Then it doesn’t exist.
Peak denialism.
And Bill goes off on weird tangents..
“Astronomers dont “label” any poles. They “identify” it. A pole IS a pole, however someone labels it.”
Sure, they identify what they think is a pole on the moon, because they believe it is rotating on its own axis. Then they label it a Pole. Unfortunately, they did so in error, because the moon does not rotate on its own axis. However, their labelling is still useful. It is still useful to have the moon all mapped out nicely with a North Pole, a South Pole, an equator, and everything in between.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 10, 2020 at 5:54 PM
“The moon does not really have any Poles”.
_________________________________________
The first time You give a realy clear statement to this point.
Dr Roy Spencers DREAMTEAM denies the existence of moon poles!
Remarkable.
Not at all remarkable. In fact, it goes without saying. Obviously, if you argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles, because there is no axial rotation.
” Obviously, if you argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles, because there is no axial rotation.”
Strange that the locations on the Moon labeled as Poles have all the same properties of the Earths poles.
Averaged over an orbital period, they are the darkest places on the Moon, they are the coldest places on the Moon, and permanent ice has been detected at the Poles. During an orbit, they point to a fixed set of stars.
DREMT should be explaining how his model accounts for these properties. But he won’t.
You see DREMT views it as a religious issue, not a science issue.
Observations don’t change beliefs in religions, because they can’t be falsified with any observations. In science of course they can and do.
When the observations contradict your belief, well, the observations must be wrong. Hence the Moon has NO Poles.
"…then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles, because there is no axial rotation."
Although, you shouldn’t forget that the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun. So there will be places on the moon which receive less sunlight than others, averaged over time, due to their location on the moon relative to the moon’s orbital plane. Nobody is denying that the moon is oriented a certain way, relative to its orbital plane, as it moves through its orbit.
“the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun. So there will be places on the moon which receive less sunlight than others, averaged over time, due to their location on the moon relative to the moon’s orbital plane.”
So far so good…
“Nobody is denying that the moon is oriented a certain way, relative to its orbital plane, as it moves through its orbit.”
Yes, yes you are.
It is oriented a certain way as it moves thru its orbit, that means there are two points on the Moon pointing to (oriented to) a fixed place in the sky. That place is at an angle of 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
We all agree that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars. That means that all points on the moon are changing their orientation to the stars…Except the two points at the Poles.
This can ONLY BE TRUE if all points on the Moon are rotating in concentric circles around a line that passes thru the Poles. The rotational axis.
No responses so far, from anybody that I am responding to…
Nate says:
It is oriented a certain way as it moves thru its orbit, that means there are two points on the Moon pointing to (oriented to) a fixed place in the sky.
We all agree that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars. That means that all points on the moon are changing their orientation to the stars…Except the two points at the Poles.
This can ONLY BE TRUE if all points on the Moon are rotating in concentric circles around a line that passes thru the Poles. The rotational axis.
—————————————-
Incorrect Nate. The points you are talking about are scribing ellipses in sky. The places you are talking about are not fixed.
Hint: True axes are found consistently approximately one au and 0.002569 au distant from the arcs so drawn. So you are on the right track just that you keep reciting another myth that gets passed around among the ignorant. The myth is that the moon’s so-called axis points at a fixed place in space.
The only thing going on here is out of your complete inability to make a case in situ you have made up mythical spots in outerspace and all you are translating there is the same error you have in situ.
Bottom line Nate a moon at rest with a lever arm simulating gravity is hit dead center. The moon will rotate around the earth with zero lunar axial rotation because no torque was applied on the moon’s internal lever arm. EOS.
“Incorrect Nate. The points you are talking about are scribing ellipses in sky. The places you are talking about are not fixed.”
Huh??
Why? You think Cuz its orbiting in an elliptical orbit???
Then why does Earth’s axis and N Pole point always to Polaris, regardless of its elliptical orbit??
If thats what you think then no wonder you are confused, Bill.
Here’s some evidence.
The Lunar South Pole points to the same fixed star during its whole orbit. Currently that star is
Delta_Doradus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Doradus
“Currently this star is the Moon’s south pole star”
Of course the axis precesses around a small circle in the sky, returning to this star every 18.5 y….much longer than the Lunar orbit of 27 days.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
You can see here exactly where the Lunar axis points in the sky
Object North pole South pole
RA Dec Constellation [3] RA Dec Constel.
Sun 286.13 +63.87 Draco 106.13 −63.87 Carina
Mercury 281.01 +61.41 Draco 101.01 −61.41 Dorado
Venus 272.76 +67.16 Draco 92.76 −67.16 Dorado
Earth +90.00 Ursa Minor −90.00 Octans
Moon 266.86 +65.64 Draco 86.86 −65.64 Dorado
These are specific locations on the Celestial Sphere.
Do you think Astronomy is just making up these numbers or what?
According to the raving mavens , unlike the earth or any of the planets, the poles of the earth’s moon are not aligned with it’s rotation axis.
One savant (the idiot is assumed) said it is useful to have the moon all mapped out nicely with a North Pole, a South Pole, an equator…. .
I can’t disagree with this amazing insight, but how was 90 degrees N ( and the corresponding other selenographic latitudes) chosen so that the selenographic equator is 1.54 degrees to the orbital plane of the moon (and 6.68 degrees with respect to the ecliptic)?
According to this fellow, this was a simple mistake resulting from a belief that the moon rotated on its axis.
This begs the question. Was 1.54 degrees chosen at random or did the value arise as a result of a dream? Maybe a lucky dip was used to choose the value or the number was plucked out of an orifice situated in a place that never sees sunlight (hence the misnomer – the dark side of the moon).
Very few of the numerous orbitally locked moonsin the solar system have been mapped in detail so there are opportunities galore for those people, who believe these moons are not rotating, to nominate poles at random.
Personally I would prefer to wait until the rotational axes of the moons have been measured.
“I can’t disagree with this amazing insight, but how was 90 degrees N ( and the corresponding other selenographic latitudes) chosen so that the selenographic equator is 1.54 degrees to the orbital plane of the moon (and 6.68 degrees with respect to the ecliptic)?”
Other way round, MikeR. 6.68 degrees with respect to the orbital plane of the moon, 1.54 degrees with respect to the ecliptic. Must have been chosen by studying the moon moving in its orbit, and looking at the libration of latitude.
Actually they must have been chosen by studying the moon moving in its day/night cycle rotating on its own axis. DREMT hasn’t come to terms yet with the sun illuminating all faces of the moon instead of a nonrotating on its own axis moon staring one face at the sun.
Remember from verified link ref.s provided by DREMT the origin of the day/night cycles on the moon:
“The Moon..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” but not the same face towards the sun.
I linked to a Wikipedia article. This, according to Ball4, means that I linked to and “verified” what is written in a completely different article on Wikipedia to the one I actually linked to. It’s just Ball4 being Ball4. A troll, in other words.
“Object North pole South pole
RA Dec Constellation [3] RA Dec Constel.
Moon 266.86 +65.64 Draco 86.86 −65.64 Dorado
Astronomers has observed that the Lunar Poles point to these oddly specific point in the sky.
And of course these numbers are well documented accepted by IAU.
So it looks like we’ll have to add these specific numbers to the growing list of things that the TEAM believes Astronomers have not actually observed, but just ‘believe in’.
“moving in its day/night cycle”
Orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, in other words.
And Bill, what of: “The places you are talking about are not fixed.”
Bill’s gone into ‘silent running’ mode.
DREMT linked to a Wikipedia article he thought supporting his opinion that didn’t actually do so. This means that DREMT linked to and others “verified” what is written in that article in a referenced article on Wikipedia supporting the one DREMT actually linked to with this detail support for “moons”:
“The Moon..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” but not the same face towards the sun.”
Great ref. DREMT, thanks for the link.
You are a liar and a troll, Ball4.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 11, 2020 at 7:58 AM
“..if you argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles…”
_____________________________
Indeed, consequently You have to deny moon poles, when You deny moon rotation.
So my question was superfluous.
I just hoped, mentioning the moon poles would make You thinking.
OK, Fritz.
Yes Fritz.
We understand that in science we are led by the facts, the observations, to the correct model or theory.
DREMT will not allow himself to be led by the facts..
His belief must be TRUE. This leads him to conclude that a growing list of contradictory observations cannot be true.
Of course, any objective observers out there can see right away that this is a religious POV, not science.
#2
OK, Fritz.
Thank you DREM,
Yes the tilt angle of the rotational axis is 6.68 degrees to the orbital plane.
Anyway it makes absolutely zero difference to the argument of course.
Where did this value originate? Why not 6.67 or 6.69 degrees or perhaps any value between 0 and 90 degrees?
DREM, you have no answer of course, just an immensely stupid statement that this was just a guess by astronomers who, in your deluded mind, falsely believed the moon rotated.
I already gave you an answer…and we have already discussed this before anyway.
Ok DREM,
Yes you have given your answer which I have succinctly summarised above. Nothing else to contribute?
No, I did not say they guessed it.
MikeR,
He says he already explained how Astronomy has gotten the 6.7 degree axial tilt all wrong?
Did he really, ever?
He certainly never explained why Astronomy gets these equally specific points in the sky that the lunar Poles point to, all wrong either.
N Pole S Pole
RA Dec RA Dec
266.86 +65.64 Draco 86.86 −65.64 Dorado
It is simply a mystery.
Or maybe, its just pure denialism.
That doesnt require any explanation.
Ok DREM,
How did they calculate the value of 6.68 degrees?
Maybe you could provide the details. 😅
…based on observations of the moon in its orbit, and the librations of latitude.
If you think they did it another way, please enlighten us.
Nate says:
Astronomers has observed that the Lunar Poles point to these oddly specific point in the sky.
And of course these numbers are well documented accepted by IAU.
So it looks like well have to add these specific numbers to the growing list of things that the TEAM believes Astronomers have not actually observed, but just believe in.
=============================================
Nate is just about one step away from getting comitted to the looney bin.
I can assure you Nate, scientists have not observed any kind of pole pointing at constellations on the face of the moon. You can fly out there yourself in your imaginary superman outfit and check it out for yourself. There is no ‘pole’ there to observe.
DREM,
I guess they also worked out where the exact orientation of the north pole in celestial coordinates* by latitudinal libration.
It just proves how clever astronomers are. If they managed to work that out, then do you really believe the astronomers were so dumb that they could not work out that the moon was not actually rotating**?
Also assuming this technique was employed, then the other authority Bill Hunter disagrees with you about the orientation of the axis of non rotation . Good to see a bit of dissension in the ranks.
p.s. the orientation of the moons rotational axis has been measured routinely using retroreflectors on the moon’s surface for 40 years***.
* R.A. 266.8 Dec +65.64 Draco
**direct measurement of the rotation speed of the moon is found here
– https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A%26A…343..624C/abstract
*** nutation of the moons rotational axis measured here
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082677.
So you think they have only labelled the moon’s “poles” in the last 40 years!? How do you think they did it before that?
Yes, DREM prior to 40 years ago astronomers knew the direction of orientation of the axis of rotation but not to the precision that has been available since the advent of lunar laser retroreflecting technology.
See paper titled –
“Determination of the lunar orbital and rotational parameters and of the ecliptic reference system orientation from LLR measurements and IERS data”
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A%26A…343..624C/abstract
Your link does not work.
Yes WordPress has mangled the link. Try this instead
https://tinyurl.com/y5feh6r4
The issue is far more fundamental than any of that. The issue is simply that the “Spinners” mistake any change in orientation of the moon, whilst it orbits, for axial rotation.
A wooden horse, securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round, is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis, as it moves in a circle. It is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, regardless of how it might appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame.
Now, the wooden horse points through e.g. N, E, S and W whilst it revolves. “Spinners” mistake this change in orientation, for axial rotation.
This mistake is going to be part and parcel of any model used in determining the moon’s rate of supposed “axial rotation”, or in determining the orientation of the moon’s “poles”.
Gosh DREM that was quick. You managed to read and fully comprehend that densely written mathematical paper in less than 20 minutes. I am impressed.
You need to let the three authors that their work undertaken over several years is pointless garbage as the moon does not rotate due to horses on merry-go-arounds that aresecurely affixed to their bases.
Let me know how that turns out.
Apropos of the above. DREM when your arguments are blown out of the water, you tend to respond by going on a gish gallop ( this time on wooden horses) recycling zombie arguments that have been discussed and debunked ad nauseum.
Again DREM have you (or any of your colleagues that have gone AWOL) anything new or even vaguely interesting to bring to the table? I suspect not.
Good night.
Good point(s) MikeR, DREMT uses a failed analogy where an object is forced to rotate on its own axis once, and only once, per rev. to draw incorrect conclusions about the moon’s free rotation on its own axis. DREMT should read the paper closely (and obtain the pre-req.s to do so) to gain correct physics/math knowledge about the moon’s orbital and rotational parameters instead of using a merry-go-round.
A Gish gallop involves overwhelming the opponent by bombarding them with many different arguments all at once. On the contrary, I wrote down one remarkably simple argument, about how “Spinners” confuse a change in orientation, with axial rotation, which you have certainly never “debunked”. In many ways, linking to a series of complex papers is more of a Gish gallop technique.
Ball4 proudly parades his ”they told me so” understanding of science.
”
I can assure you Nate, scientists have not observed any kind of pole pointing at constellations on the face of the moon.”
Well, coming from you, Bill, that is reassuring! 😉
Notice I provided evidence to back up my claim.
You have Evidence???
Ha, Ha , Ha ….silly me. Of course you dont have any.
Because facts and evidence really are irrelevant when youve got BELIEF.
“The issue is far more fundamental than any of that.
DREMT tries to escape to
his comfort zone, when caught denying reality.
His model cannot explain the observations, so he simply denies them!
What could be more fundamental than that?! The idea that theory MUST explain observations.
At least the major religions understand that their beliefs are not testable with science.
The TEAM fails to understand the basis of their belief is not science.
And the full depth of Nate’s argument for this is ”see spot run”
DREM , I think your latest contribution is either a Gish Gallop of the circular variety ( just repeating the same nonsense, as if this makes it true) or just touching base for a subsequent sequence of stale arguments .
For the former, vast amounts of time have been wasted on wooden horses alone ( see the last few month’s discussion*), let alone moon spokes, plates rotating about pivot points etc…
If the latter, then the next Gish Gallop would be to touch base with the planes, trains, automobiles arguments that have all been done to death**. Later bases that DREM is likely to revisit will include balls on strings etc…
Unfortunately DREM has never made it to first base as DREM and a couple of his mates seem to be the only ones that think any rigid body analogy is appropriate to the earth/moon system.
Despite the concept being so ridiculous, this whole mlong winded discussion, might have been useful if there had been any practical significance to believing the moon doesn’t rotate.
NASA put man on the moon and other space agencies have put numerous probes on the moon without believing the moon does not rotate.
The lack of utility of the concept indicates that it is just a “wank” designed to satisfy delusions of grandeur.
This also suggests that DREM’s stubborn disregard of facts, is just reflective of an emotional overcommitment to this nonsense.
So once again, DREM unless you have something new to contribute then further discussion is pointless.
* 324 references to wooden horses and 202 references to merry-go -arounds in just one month! i.e. July’s discussion.
** Also hundreds, if not thousands of comments over the last two years.
OK, MikeR.
“And the full depth of Nates argument for this is ‘see spot run’
Bill ASSURED us that the Moon’s poles dont point to specific spots on the celestial sphere, as astronomy has observed.
Strong statement.
I asked him to show us evidence.
And….nothing, nada, zilch.
Bill’s credibility was already low, now its taking a nose dive.
#2
OK, MikeR.
“emotional overcommitment to this nonsense”
For sure. His ego is all wrapped up in it.
#3
OK, MikeR.
“Best wishes to USA. Germany suffers with You.”
Thank you Fritz, we’re gonna need it.
I’m going with Nate on this one since he quoted Newton’s Proposition XVII, Theorem XV verbatim.
Yes, the issue Newton was discussing was “libration”, which is due to orbital motion.
One way to understand is with a wooden horse mounted on a merry-go-round. The horse cannot rotate about its axis, because it is securely fastened to the platform. But, to someone standing off the platform, the horse “appears” to be rotating on its axis. The apparent motion is caused by the “orbital motion” of the platform. The wooden horse is NOT rotating about its axis. It’s the same as Moon.
you sound… confused?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to lay too much reality on you at once. I’ll go slower.
What was it that confused you? The “merry-go-round”?
Bruh, are you alright?
You moon guys are funny. Maybe this has been covered, I’ve only read a few of these threads. But it seems to me that if we consider what happens to the moon if the earth were to suddenly disappear it might convince someone.
So if the earth was suddenly vaporized what happens to the moon. Does it go off in a straight line rotating on its own axis once a year or does it go off without rotating? If it doesn’t rotate after the earth disappears it seems to me that it never was rotating. If it is still rotating then it must always have been.
Yes, what does Tim Peake think:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Silly Svante believes that video is “proof” a ball on a string is rotating about its axis. It’s been explained to him that the video demonstates Newton’s 3rd Law. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis before release.
Silly Svante can’t learn. We shouldn’t laugh at him, so it’s a good thing no one can see or hear me….
Ogre, or the converse.
Suppose we use rockets to push a “moon” to Venus (chosen because there is no moon to interfere). The rockets push this moon so it is heading in a straight line and not rotating with respect to the distant stars. At the right moment, the rockets are turned off and the moon begins to orbit in a circular path.
Will the moon begin to orbit:
a) maintaining its original fixed orientation with respect to the stars?
b) maintaining the same face toward Venus?
I was laughing so hard at silly Svante, I forgot to answer Ogre’s question.
If Earth’s gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go hurling into space (or into Sun) in a straight line, with no axial rotation.
The answer to Tim’s question is “b”, just as Moon does now.
Ogre,
A good illustration of this is courtesy of the Slow Mo Guys.
https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0?t=193
In the video you can see that as the record dissociates the individual pieces continue to rotate (conserve their angular momentum) as they fly off at tangents.
Wrong again, bdgwx. You found a video that clearly demonstrates conservation of angular momentum. In the video, the entire record has angular momentum before it breaks. After the record breaks, that angular momentum is conserved.
That is NOT what would happen to Moon if Earth’s gravity were turned off. Moon does not have angular momentum. Gravity does not provide angular momentum to Moon. So if Earth’s gravity were suddenly turned off, it would fly off without rotating about its axis. Angular momentum would still be conserved. Angular momentum is ALWAYS conserved.
And bdgwx, have you sobered up enough to deal with the mess you left here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
You can admit you had too much wine. Or maybe you were just having a “bad hair day”. But, you need to take responsibility for spewing such crap. Otherwise, you won’t ever learn about honesty and human decency. You’ll always be a sleezebag.
bdgwx believes the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record breaks apart! In other words, before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!
To extend his “logic”, that means every atom of the record is rotating on its own axis before the record disintegrates, as is every possible 1 nanometer-squared sub-division of the record, as is every possible 1mm-squared sub-division, as is every possible 1cm-squared sub-division, etc etc. All rotating on their own axes, just because the record itself is rotating!
In reality, every part of the record, before disintegration, is rotating about an axis in the center of the record, and not on its own axis.
Of course the moon continues to rotate as it flies off.
And the Venus ‘moon’ continues to not rotate if inserted into orbit wwithout rotation.
Again just ask Newton, and his First Law applied to rotation.
The TEAM wants observers to believe them over Newton on both counts.
Nate provides his inaccurate, inconsistent, and ignorant opinion.
Did I mention “worthless”?
As expected from the chief-resident Dimwit-Troll, no answers, just insults.
Puzzling why he thinks anyone out there would find that to be a convincing rebuttal???
DREMT said: bdgwx believes the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record breaks apart! In other words, before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!
I accept that each piece has non-zero angular velocity about its own axis (r=0 through its center of mass) wrt to a rotationally inertial reference frame (a=0 fixed to distant point). That is not a “belief”. It is an undisputable mathematical fact.
…and yet, the pieces cannot even move independently of each other before disintegration.
“and yet, the pieces cannot even move independently of each other before disintegration.”
Dr Em T’s pea sized brain in action. Rotation is measured wrt to the inertial reference frame, you idiot, not to the rotating reference frame.
Regardless of reference frame, the pieces cannot move independently of each other before disintegration.
“Its been explained to him that the video demonstates Newtons 3rd Law.”
Let me correct his quote:
“Its been explained to him that the video demonstates Newtons 3rd Law….by a complete and utter idiot.”
The video demonstrates Newton’s first law of motion. An object cannot start spinning around its own axis on its own accord. The ball in the video was already spinning on its own axis prior to release. Tension in the string cannot induce a torque to cause its rotation upon release.
Einstein insists an object cannot rotate wrt to a rotating reference frames its attached to. Wow! Amazing! Lets get a paper published! Brilliant!
It has nothing to do with reference frames. It is simply a question of “which axis is the object rotating around?”
TYSON MCGUFFIN
You are right, and all four commenters persistently denying on this blog Moon’s rotation about its interior axis (Robertson, ClintR, DREMT and bill hunter) are wrong.
1. No one knows why they deny all the historical work done during centuries by e.g. Mercator, Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Delaunay etc.
2. No one knows why they deny all the contemporary work done since over 60 years by e.g. Habibullin, Rizvanov / Rakhimov, Calame, MacDonald, Chapront, Eckhardt, Migus, Moons, Beletzkii etc.
No one knows why they deliberately ignore facts like what was written for a hearing in The House’s Committee on Science and Astronautics .
https://tinyurl.com/ycmbzd2z
Therein, 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.
*
These denialists will tell you:
” That’s all wrong, they completely misunderstood everything, we know that. ”
And of course: Newton perfectly knew that the optical libration in longitude was due to Moon’s rotation about the axis passing thru its center of mass.
It is written in Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV in the Third Edition of his Principia Mathematica, published in 1726, and translated in 1729 by Andrew Motte, republished in the US in 1846:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookIII-Prop2
J.-P. D.
JD, did you work all day compiling that nonsense? At least it keeps you off the streets, where you could really do some harm.
You included Newton, but forgot to mention Galileo. Those two are the ones you need to be learning from. If you could learn.
You and Svante are so stupid you don’t realize “TYSON” is just another attempt by “Snape” to hide. You idiots are so easily fooled….
Libration.
This is because the Moon’s orbit is elliptical. The Moon rotates clockwise around the Earth/Moon line at perigee and anticlockwise at apogee.
It amuses me that according to ClintR the Moon is Not Rotating at different speeds at different points in its orbit.
Poor ClintR who thinks no one would have dioscovered his sockpuppetry…
Don’t try to teach me about Galileo Galilei, who was one of the most important astronomers (yes, ClintR: those discredited and denigrated in many posts by hunter and… Robertson, the pseudoengineer).
He was the ‘father’ of what we term heliocentrism, and helped the World to get rid of the dark age introduced by the Catholic Church.
But his work concerning the Moon was less relevant compared with those I mentioned.
*
The one who refutes learning from Newton: that’s you, exactly as has been JD*Huffman one year ago.
I repeat what you permanently ignore:
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.
Neither you nor DREMT, bill hunter, Flynnson, let alone the ridiculous ignorant guy nicknamed Robertson can hide that away or even misrepresent it.
That IS Newton, ClintR: the indestructible mirror of your unscientific thinking.
J.-P. D.
Entropic man and JD, whenever you see the word “libration”, you need to realize two facts:
1) It is an apparent motion, due to Moon’s non-circular orbit, as seen from Earth.
2) Moon is not actually rocking back and forth.
(I bet neither can understand.)
Yeah, it’s because orbital and rotational speed are different and distinct from each other.
The moon orbits at varying speeds whilst it changes its orientation at a steadier rate.
"Changing orientation" does not equal "axial rotation".
“The moon orbits at varying speeds whilst it changes its orientation at a steadier rate.”
Very good. You inadvertently acknowledge that orbiting and orientional change ARE INDEPENDENT MOTIONS.
Finally..
ClintR
Oh I suddenly see you writing in a comment one more of your typical lies…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549541
*
The truth is here:
Bindidon says:
November 2, 2020 at 7:07 PM
hunter
You don’t seem to really understand the concepts of Moon’s libration and rotation.
The (longitudinal) libration Lagrange mathematically proved to be a consequence of Moon’s rotation IS NOT REAL: it is solely an optical artefact resulting from many different things.
Continue to lie, ClintR! Fits so perfectly to you.
J.-P. D.
JD, I know you are desperate, but maybe you could find someone to help you with your sentence composition.
Bindidon decided to “pollute the thread” some more, after all.
DREMT: you are polluting it as well as ClintR and others.
When you stop writing unscientific nonxsense, I’ll stop reminding you about what e.g. Newton wrote
J.-P. D.
The difference is, I didn’t say I was going to stop.
Didn’t JD say he wasn’t going to comment about Moon anymore?
Or was that Nomran? I get them confused.
I think both Nomran and JD said they were not commenting on the moon any more.
That’s a shame about Nomran, because at least he was one of the few “Spinners” that understood the wooden horse and chalk circle are not rotating in their own axes, regardless of reference frame.
I was thinking that JD and Nomran might be the same person. They have so many similarities–Poor writing composition, lack of science training, addicted to their keyboards, hateful, and completely committed to their cult.
But, JD has put out some poor quality graphs. I’ve never seen Nomran attempt any homemade graphs. If Nomran ever shows us a poor quality graph, then we know for sure.
clint…”I was thinking that JD and Nomran might be the same person”.
Binny did go off in a hissy-fit a couple of years ago only to reappear as a woman. He claimed it was his girlfriend but he has never satisfactorily answered the question as to why she would suddenly appear as a poster shortly after Binny departed.
Gordon says, “Binny did go off in a hissy-fit a couple of years ago only to reappear as a woman.”
Cross-dressing? The perverts love perversion.
ClintR
More evidence you are not a smart person nor do you have good logical thought process. Now you think Bindidon and Norman are the same poster. There is vastly different characteristics of our posting styles. Bindidon seems to be very knowledgeable of temperature data sets, how to collect them from official sites and produce graphs. I studied Chemistry in college and to update my knowledge of heat transfer I read textbooks on the topic to make intelligent posts that are based on real science.
Nomran, you can’t deny the similarities. Of course, all cult members eventually lose their individuality. Each one just sounds more and more like the others.
When you avoid reality, the eventual outcome is always tragic:
https://www.history.com/topics/crime/jonestown
Seems the lunatics are back on their hobby horses.
I will see if things have improved from their previous efforts.
This is a depiction that stumped Bill Hunter and let’s see if the brains trust can work out the answer.
https://i.postimg.cc/DzpjgvTZ/Rotations-ABC.gif
For the above, what is the rotational period of each of the objects A,B and C in the above, in seconds. Doesnt have to be accurate, just a rough estimate will do*? So DREM , ClintR and Gordon what are your estimates**?
* counting “cats and dogs” will do.
** Will they evade? If so how?
https://postimg.cc/k2HTXcc8
The above gif helps explain what I was getting at further up-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549411
The little boxes on the left represent what you see from the inertial reference frame where r=0 is going through the center of mass of the moon (Frame 1) The images with the Earth and moon on the right represent what you see from the inertial reference where r=0 is going through the center of mass of the Earth (Frame 2). You cannot judge whether or not the moon is rotating on its own axis from Frame 1, you need to “zoom out” your reference frame by looking at Frame 2.
From looking at Frame 2, we can conclude that A is rotating on its own axis, once, in the same direction as the orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis, like our own moon. C is rotating on its own axis, once, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so that it appears to be not rotating on its own axis). If that confuses you, try watching this video, which goes through these three different scenarios, in that order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
DREM,
I take it from your reply that you cannot calculate the rotational period for the three cases!!!
You still want to argue your case if you are incapable of this task that would not tax the average 8 year old (or even Donald Trump).
Game over.
p.s. still waiting for ClintR And Gordon’s calculations.
"I take it from your reply that you cannot calculate the rotational period for the three cases!!!"
You can take it that I have explained why you don’t have a point.
DREM,
You are either clearly terrified of answering the above or incapable.
In the latter case it is very, very simple. Just count in your head how long it takes for each object to rotate once. If you can’t do that then you can use the stop watch function of your mobile to time it.
Surely there must be an adult around that can help you or lend you a phone. Are you really incapable of doing this on your own?
Even Bill managed to do it for one of the three objects. If you are still struggling then maybe Clint or Gordon help you.🙂
I have explained why you don’t have a point, and what’s more I have been through this with you twice before already. Stop baiting and trolling.
Yep just make your point Mike and stop playing games.
Bill and DREM,
The point I am making, apparently very effectively, is that none of you can measure the rotation of the objects, something that the average schoolchild would be capable of.
And you guys want to be taken seriously?
As I said in my comment of 6:57am:
“From looking at Frame 2, we can conclude that A is rotating on its own axis, once, in the same direction as the orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis, like our own moon. C is rotating on its own axis, once, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so that it appears to be not rotating on its own axis).”
It takes roughly 5/6 seconds for A and C to rotate on their own axes. B does not rotate on its own axis.
Note that I am referring to your gif k2HTXcc8. Obviously you cannot correctly separate axial rotation from orbital motion from your Rotations-ABC gif.
DREM – “Obviously you cannot correctly separate axial rotation from orbital motion from your Rotations-ABC gif.”
Correct, and that is why, for this extremely obvious reason, I did not ask you about orbital motion.
All I asked was simply about the rotation!
Again, what is rotational period of the three objects? To make it even easier, so you don’t have to get a stop watch or count seconds in your head, here is a slightly modified depiction that includes a clock.
https://i.postimg.cc/Fs4M1JwN/Rotations-ABCClock.gif
I suggest because of your difficulties, you can start with measuring the rotation period of the second hand of the clock.
Once you have done that you could count the number of rotations over a fixed period (say 60 seconds) for A,B and C.
Once you have shown you are capable of accomplishing this simple task, then we could look at the something more complicated such as orbiting.
Baby steps DREM, baby steps.
“Correct, and that is why, for this extremely obvious reason, I did not ask you about orbital motion.
All I asked was simply about the rotation!”
You deliberately “misunderstand”. You can’t correctly determine the rate of axial rotation from a “Frame 1” inertial reference frame as portrayed in your Rotations-ABC gif. You need to “zoom out” your inertial reference frame to a “Frame 2”. I have already given you the rates of axial rotation for the objects in this gif:
https://postimg.cc/k2HTXcc8
Where you can see both a “Frame 1” in the boxes on the left and a “Frame 2” in the images to the right. Task completed.
It is interesting that both Bill and DREMT run as fast as they can from answering your exceedingly simple question.
What are they afraid of?
Its as if they know that answering it honestly will get them into yet another logical pickle that they have no way out of.
At this point they have run out of logic, and they are just here to poke people with a stick.
Yes Nate,
DREM is desperately trying to hold the fort* as the others have absconded**.
There are a number of obvious rejoinders to DREM’s latest contribution, via slightly different depictions, but it is late here in Oz, so it will have to wait for the morning.
* taking a cue from the bloviating cult leader, St.Donald the patron saint of lost causes.
** finally a sensible move from DREM’s colleagues.
Task completed.
and MikeR and Nate are still bloviating without a single scientific reference between the two of them to support their case.
Bill, in your desperation you have regressed and are now an obstreperous child.
“without a single scientific reference between the two of them to support their case.”
Bill, seek and thee shall find. A two minute search with Google reveals the following.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
and the 41 references contained within.
See also
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
and the 24 references contained within.
DREM,
“Task completed”
In your dreams, DREM. Here are the obvious rejoinders that I promised. These are depictions that are ” zoomed out” to reveal Frame 2.
https://i.postimg.cc/QM0Cs6GP/rejoinder1.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/cLf8qMJy/rejoinder2.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/ZKtdwMTF/rejoinder3.gif
Notice that the objects at the left side that show the rotation around the centre of mass are identical in al three rejoinders and also identical to the depiction
https://i.postimg.cc/DzpjgvTZ/Rotations-ABC.gif
that DREM is totally bewildered by.
None of this is surprising of course as rotation around the centre of mass and the orbiting of the centre of mass are independent and can be measured independently.
In contrast DREM’s answer to the rotation period of the objects is worth repeating –
“From looking at Frame 2, we can conclude that A is rotating on its own axis, once, in the same direction as the orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis, like our own moon. C is rotating on its own axis, once, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so that it appears to be not rotating on its own axis).
It takes roughly 5/6 seconds for A and C to rotate on their own axes. B does not rotate on its own axis.”
DREM has resorted to this highly amusing interpretation as he is too incompetent to able to measure the rotation period directly.
Game over, yet again.
😀😃😄😁😆😅🤣😂🙂😊
You seem to have gone to an awful lot of effort to help make my point for me. Thanks for that, MikeR. You really do need to “zoom out” that reference frame in order to correctly determine the rate of axial rotation.
DREM, as is shown above see the rotational period is the same for all orbital conditions. Therefore it can be measured* without any knowledge of the orbital characteristics!
You clearly don’t need the zoomed out perspective that includes the orbital information. Even you in your brief moments of lucidity have agreed that the two motions are independent.
So DREM the game is over and stop doing a Trump**.
* measured by anyone with at least half a brain using a stop watch or by simple observation.
** are you plannjng to argue your case in the Supreme Court? Rudi Giuliani will cost you a fortune.
No, they do not all have the same axial rotational period.
For example, in your Rejoinder 1.gif, A has an axial rotational period of about 2.5 seconds.
Whereas, in your Rejoinder 2.gif, A is not rotating on its own axis.
So the zoom in is necessary.
Zoom out, I should have said.
Ok DREM,
For Rejoinder 1 that has no orbital velocity, I agree with your estimate of 2.5 seconds for Object A. What rotational periods do you get for Objects B and C in this case>
For Rejoinder 1:
A = 2.5 seconds.
B = 5 seconds.
C = not rotating on its own axis.
For Rejoinder 2:
A = not rotating on its own axis
B = rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to the orbit, twice per orbit = 2.5 seconds.
C = rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to the orbit, once per orbit = 5 seconds.
DREM,
I am glad we agree about rejoinder 1, as it means you are actually capable of calculating the rotational period directly by the time honoured system , using a watch. That’s a relief.
However your insistence that the rotations ,which by direct measurement are identical , are different for rejoinder 2 (and presumably rejoinder 3) is where , it is impossible for any agreement between ourselves.
Fundamentally our point of dispute is your “interesting” claim that you cannot calculate the rotational period without knowing the orbital characteristics (i.e. zooming out in my depictions) . So, according to you, rotation about the centre of mass and orbital motion of the centre of mass are not independent.
This contradicts your own statements, that I seem to recall, that recognise this independence*.
Anyway, here are some appropriate references that explicitly explain the independence of the motion of the centre of mass and rotation around the centre of mass.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/science/physics/center-of-mass
and
https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/chapter20.pdf
See section 20.1 for a simple illustration.
In particular see Example 20.5 where the two motions are treated independently for an orbiting body. This is remarkably pertinent.
Also Appendix 20A gives more detailed explanation, in this case for translation ( linear or curvilinear) and rotation about the centre of mass.
* if this misrepresents your position let us all know.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
“The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.”
Wrong. Actually:
The “Non-Spinners” earlier & elsewhere define “pure orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
The non-spinners defn. changes regularly. The moon is not pure orbital motion since it has day/night cycles so moon rotates on its own axis.
Ball4 never has anything worthwhile to contribute.
As DREM has just gone into repetition mode and is unable to respond sensibly to comments, it is time to wrap it up neatly. I am also assuming DREM is in agreement with my previous comment.
Summary.
1. Rotation around the centre of mass and orbiting of the centre of mass are two independent motions that can be measured independently ( see physics text book references in previous comment ).
For further confirmation see –
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Q4sYYx/Variable-Orbital-Velocity.gif
2. In the following depiction, case B is rotating with a period of 5.66 seconds which is the same as it’s orbital period.
https://i.postimg.cc/8zkLwSCV/Moon-Orbital-and-Rotational-Motion.gif
B is rotating and is displaying the same face to the earth.
3. In reality yhe orbital period matching the rotational period is not a coincidence as it is a consequence of the physics of tidal locking.
Claims about the orbital interactions giving different rates of rotation are just zombie arguments by the usual suspects.
I now expect DREM and or his accomplices to
(a) raise , via gish gallops to other zombie arguments that have already been dealt with extensively elsewhere
or,
(b) Simply repeat trademark slogans and other material that we are all aware of (see DREM’s last comment).
or
(c) refer to dubious material from Tesla from early last century or YouTube videos that are, and have, been easily debunked.
It would be totally out of character for DREM et al. to instead admit the error of their ways and move on. I think they are too emotionally invested in their crackpot theory.
Is there something I am supposed to be responding to?
I’m sorry your whole bit with the “zooming out” didn’t work out for you. Better luck next time!
Yes, MikeR, the DREM Team is unable to respond sensibly or substantively to many comments because they know “they are too emotionally invested in their crackpot theory.”
No emotional investment here. I have just spent a bit of time talking to MikeR, recently, as he appears to be lonely and apparently wants somebody to talk to. This subject seems to fascinate him, so I obliged his curiosities and tried to help him understand. Unfortunately it does not seem as though he has the capability to learn. Oh well.
Correspondence is now closed as DREM et al. have nothing new to add.
I know DREM, in his role as a troll , will continue on unabated.
If DREM and his disciplee ever think of something new I might resume but the likelihood of that happening is very remote.
p.s. At least our correspondence has kept DREM ‘s PSTs under control, at least for this month.
Yes, MikeR, that’s more evidence the DREM Team is unable to respond sensibly or substantively to comments.
I wonder if Ball4 will ever respond sensibly and substantively to comments?
Ball4 as a postscript to my comments above.
I should have added option (d), DREM will do a Trump and continue to claim victory despite all evidence to the contrary.
However as long DREM is kept occupied and enuretically warm, who cares?
On that topic I have pissed myself laughing at the DREM brigade’s incompetent attempts to overthrow well established concepts in both Physics and Astronomy. Along with DREM, Gordon of course deserves particular mention but shoutouts to ClintR and Bill for their efforts.
Lonely Mike still wants someone to talk to.
“No emotional investment here. ”
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Denialism invades all areas of DREMTS psyche.
#2
Lonely Mike still wants someone to talk to.
norman…re Pauling…”The motion associated with the sixth degree of freedom, the distance r between the tow nuclei, is the vibrational motion of two nuclei relative to one another, or, more accurately, their synchronous vibrational motion relative to the center of mass.””
Obviously, you cherry picked that paragraph without understanding what he was saying. He is talking about the vibrational motion between two nucleii, not some mysterious property attributed to molecules by some.
Do you know of any nuclei that coexist without electrons and share a mutual vibration? Pauling wrote the book on the covalent bond which is a means of bonding nucleii with electrons. No electrons – no bond. No bonds – no vibration.
The electron action in the bonds is integral to the vibration. Two nucleii, having positive charges would push each other apart. If some electrons are shared between two nuclei, they orbit both nuclei and that is what Pauling is talking about re degrees of freedom.
In orbiting both nucleii the electrons are attracted to the positively charged nucleii but their momentum prevents them being sucked into the nucleii. It is this mutual attraction/repulsion between the nucleii and the electrons that cause the vibration.
If you have a macro amount of such pairs, in a gas, liquid, or solid, and you add heat, it is the electrons that absorb the heat and jump to higher orbital energy levels. That increases their kinetic energy, causing the vibration to increase. Conversely, if you remove heat, the electrons lose kinetic energy and drop to lower energy levels.
Gordon Robertson
It is quite clear what Linus Pauling was saying. There is more that I did not type and will not type since you are not going to accept anything anyone says about it.
The bonding electrons only (not the rest) act as spring tension holding the atoms of the molecule (the nuclei) from flying apart when IR energy is absorbed. The IR energy causes the nuclei to try to move farther apart than the would do with just positive charge, it is the IR energy becoming kinetic. The bonding electrons are stretched but will only break if they have a specific amount of energy, then then atoms of the molecule break the bonds and go off their own way.
You have your Chemistry wrong. An electron that moves to a higher orbital does NOT gain kinetic energy, the kinetic energy actually goes down, it gains potential energy, that is what gets converted to visible light when the electron drops back to a lower state. Electron transitions and molecular vibrations are different forms of energy. Molecular vibrational states are lower energy than electron transitions.
Here: “Although dot-density diagrams are very informative about the potential energy of an electron in an orbital, they tell us nothing at all about its kinetic energy. It is impossible, for example, to decide from Figure 5.6 whether the electron in a 1s orbital is moving faster on the whole than an electron in a 2s orbital, or even whether it is moving at all! Fortunately it turns out that this difficulty is unimportant. The total energy (kinetic + potential) of an electron in an atom or a molecule is always one-half its potential energy. Thus, for example, when an electron is shifted from a 1s to a 2s orbital, its potential energy increases by 3.27 aJ. At the same time the electron slows down and its kinetic energy drops by half this quantity, namely, 1.635 aJ. The net result is that the total energy (kinetic + potential) increases by exactly half the increase in potential energy alone; i.e., it increases by 1.635 aJ. A similar statement can he made for any change inflicted on any electron in any atomic or molecular system. This result is known as the virial theorem. Because of this theorem we can, if we want, ignore the kinetic energy of an electron and concentrate exclusively on its potential energy.”
Source:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_ChemPRIME_(Moore_et_al.)/05%3A_The_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/5.12%3A_Electron_Density_and_Potential_Energy
I have given you actual science information on electron kinetic energy. What is your source? Will you produce one or is it just you made up stuff?
tyson…”Can anyone explain to me the theory behind using jade amulets to protect from Covid-19 decease? It seems legit”.
First of all, we need to find the virus. No one has ever seen it, just like HIV. When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement.
This is not a conspiracy theory, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV, that he inferred it. Furthermore, he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. Ironically, some idiots are now bringing out a new test for HIV that you can use at home. Oh, how the money rolls in.
There is obviously something hurting people throughout the world but every time something like that comes along, scientists go looking for a virus right away. If they can’t find direct evidence, they make it up.
I’d hold off on your jade amulets for a bit till intelligent scientists have a chance to assess the situation rather than the wannabees collection big bucks re funding and patents. Then again, that could take a century. One day, we’ll be the laughing stock of future generations.
Gordon Robertson is a BS artist. Stronger response below.
binny…”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”.
The Moon rotates about 13 degrees in a day. Divide 360 degrees by 13 degrees/day and you get 27.7 days. That is roughly the time the Moon takes to orbit the Earth wrt the stars.
Obviously the rotation referenced here is the rotation of the Moon we refer to as orbiting. IF it was rotating at 13 degrees per day on its axis, the same face could not possible always point at the Earth.
There is no such thing as synchronous rotation under those conditions.
Robertson
Your brazen denialism doesn’t help you.
You have shown all the time that you keep ignorant of nearly everything, and prefer to show up with your own narrative.
When these people write ” … and the Moon rotates at approximately 13 degrees per day … ” : do you think I rather would believe a zero-knowledge guy like you?
And when they write:
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.
do you think again I rather would believe a zero-knowledge guy like you?
Feel free to speak about ‘appeal to authority’ – that has been your last ‘refugium’ all the time.
Luckily, ignorant boasters like you were never and will never be involved in the management of any spacecraft mission!
J.-P. D.
JD claims: “Luckily, ignorant boasters like you were never and will never be involved in the management of any spacecraft mission!”
See ignorant JD actually believes the hoax of Moon’s axial rotation would actually have any impact on real situations. He actually believes something that is totally imaginary will affect real life. Moon only orbits, it does NOT also rotate about its axis. That’s why we only see one side of it.
JD is an idiot.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 5, 2020 at 10:29 PM
“First of all, we need to find the virus. No one has ever seen it, just like HIV. When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement.”
“Then again, that could take a century. One day, we’ll be the laughing stock of future generations.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LMFAO! I’m gonna call BS on this one. I will research Electron Microscopy applications in Clinical Microbiology just for my own education since this is not my field of expertise.
Regarding jade amulets, never mind. The paper has been retracted due to high BS content.
Tyson: here’s a link to a detailed description of COVID-19 and what’s currently known (and not known) about it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
There’s no need to have an in-depth knowledge of virology, you’ll get a general picture from the article.
All this is the result of using established molecular biology technology by experts around the globe, but Gordon as before will of course simply dismiss it all as fiction.
Tyson: here’s an article about the HIV virus which Gordon doesn’t believe exists:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/#:~:text=The%20viral%20envelope%20is%20composed,(CA)%20%5B26%5D.
Biologically complex, but as with the COVID-19 description, you’ll get an overview without having to go into huge detail.
It doesn’t exist? Yeah, right…..
Fritz Kraut says:
November 6, 2020 at 6:47 AM
“Moon would appear to be rotating about its axis”
___________________________
“It IS rotating.
Once as it orbits the planet.
Thats called “synchronous rotation” or “bound rotation”.
Best wishes to USA. Germany suffers with You.
Fritz Kraut.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes, it is rotating. It is not trivial but if the moon did not rotate as it orbits earth we would be able to see the far side at times during its monthly orbit.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004400/a004442/orbit_2019_850p30.mp4
I appreciate your best wishes, I have family in Germany and we all suffer together.
If the moon were rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
please expand on that line of thought.
I’ll save you some typing by stipulating your earlier post
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 5, 2020 at 12:44 PM
Lets use polar coordinates (r, a) where r is radius and a is angle.
1)Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the center of mass of the moon and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. In reality, it is not.
2) Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the Earth/moon barycenter and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (a motion known as “orbiting”, or “revolving”), and not rotating on its own axis.
You have to “zoom out” your inertial reference frame from 1) to 2) in order to have the complete picture, such that you can “see” the moon is not rotating on its own axis.”
When an object rotates around an external point (revolves, or orbits), you always see the same side of the object from that external point, whilst it moves around it. That is simply what “rotation around an external point” is. That is what that motion involves.
The orbital paths of the particles comprising an object that is rotating around an external point form concentric circles. For example, the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) at the below link is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis (not about its own center of mass):
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
So, from the Earth, we should always see the same side of the moon if it is not rotating on its own axis, but merely rotating around an external point (in this case, the Earth/moon barycenter). If the moon was both orbiting and rotating on its own axis, then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Correcting the always wrong DREMT: If the moon was both orbiting and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Incorrect, as explained.
“When an object rotates around an external point (revolves, or orbits), ”
These 3 are not equivalent!
And you know it.
Stop posting misleading, false information!
#2
Incorrect, as explained.
Your point then is that (1) as I sit facing my desk, which sits in front of a large window through which I can see a distant tall building, (2) if I get up and circle the desk with my gaze fixed on that distant building, (3) my back will never turn towards the desk.
No, that’s not my point at all. If you continue to face the distant building whilst circling your desk, you back will at points be turned towards the desk.
Try reading my comment again.
DREMT CAN get it right, if you continue to face the distant building (not rotating on your own axis) whilst circling your desk, you( r) back will at points be turned towards the desk showing all sides to the desk, just like if the moon were not rotating on its own axis.
Since that is not observed for the moon, the moon is rotating on its own axis once per rev. of Earth presenting the same side to Earth the whole rev.
In order to continue to face the distant building whilst circling the desk, you need to rotate on your own axis.
Pure orbital motion only presents one side to center of orbit. It’s the same motion as the ball on a string. It’s the same as Moon.
Wrong as usual DREMT because as you wrote no rotation on your own axis because: “you continue to face the distant building”.
Yes, ClintR, ball on string, moon all are similar motions, one rotation on object’s own axis per rev. for no string wrap and same face to orbit center.
#2
In order to continue to face the distant building whilst circling the desk, you need to rotate on your own axis.
ClintR moaned,
“Pure orbital motion only presents one side to center of orbit. Its the same motion as the ball on a string.”
Looks like N Tesla has been resurrected, or perhaps Jay Dee Huff***. They were the only two clowns who used that made-up term. An orbit is a path, Einstein.
SGW, your own argument for what “pure orbital motion” is (orbital motion without axial rotation) includes orientation! You think “pure orbital motion” involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout.
I never use the term “pure orbital motion”.
Who cares what you call it!?
Yes, Earth rotates about its axis, but Moon does not, as evidenced by your link. Earth presents different sides to center of it orbit (Sun), but Moon only presents one side to center of its orbit (Earth).
NASA got something right.
Thanks, Snape.
November 5, 2020 at 12:58 PM
Bruh, are you alright?
There’s no doubt you’re an idiot.
The question is: Why do you thrive on being an idiot?
Bruh, are you alright?
I didn’t mean to trigger ya.
You didn’t answer the question.
Why do you thrive on being an idiot?
You didn’t answer the question.
Why do you thrive on being an idiot?
Snape, are you alright?
(Rhetorical question, of course. We know you’re an idiot.)
Snape, are you alright?
(Rhetorical question, of course. We know you’re an idiot.)
Don’t think it’s Snape, ClintR. Appears to be just some random troll.
Nah, it’s Snape, Doris, Romona, now Tyson. I recognize the immaturity.
But, he/she is definitely a troll.
Is ClintR rotating around his own axis?
Not if he’s sitting on the wooden horse, which is itself securely bolted towards the outside edge of the merry-go-round…
…then he would only be rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on his own axis.
Picture that.
OK, Svante, I will.
It does make sense, sort of.
Glad you finally agree.
you cant debate somebody like DREMT who cannot distinguish orbit from spin and just calls both of them rotation. its an eartflatter circular argument
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Eben, before you start with your false accusations, you should have done just a little research. DREMT has defined all the motions, numerous times, just for idiot trolls like you.
In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether.
Not in the case of the rotating once on its own axis per orbit moon, chalk circle, bolted wooden horse, and ball on string where an axis of rotation exists inside of the object as well as outside the object.
No, there is only one axis in those examples, about which the objects rotate. Those objects do not rotate about their own centers of mass, they rotate about an external axis – they are orbiting/revolving only. No axial rotation.
DREMT’s comment then means the universe is observed revolving about the object that DREMT states isn’t rotating on its own axis as in case of the moon. For the ball on string, the room is revolving once per rev. about the ball that isn’t rotating on its own axis once per rev. True backwards warrior comment DREMT, completely wrong as usual.
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
If you are bolted to something that is rotating, then you are rotating.
Agreed…but not on your own axis. The wooden horse, bolted towards the outside edge of the MGR, is rotating…but not on its own axis. It is rotating about the center of the MGR.
It’s a nice day for trolling, huh G-500?
UAH is gold standard. CDAS is notoriously cold and is a model initialization product but still gives us a pretty good idea of where things are headed. So you can look every day. For the US. I think the PRISM product is best. Those are on our site at weatherbell.com. I have noticed that in the saddle seasons ( spring, fall) there are bigger discrepancies but in the heart of winter and summer, they are usually much closer. Still put it this way.. CDAS is like a poll, UAH is the result, though unlike some of the shenanigans we see now in that aspect is beyond reproach with Dr Roy and the helm
Joe,
How do the long term trends compare between CDAS and others?
And dont you think its a serious issue that there are big differences in the trends produced by the various groups, RSS and UAH, others, looking at the same data?
Joe,
What convinces you that UAH should be the be-all end-all gold standard?
Don’t you find it odd that other datasets with near full spatial coverage like GISTEMP, Berkeley Earth, and ERA generally agree with warming rates from 1979 to present of +0.1916C/decade, +0.1905C/decade, and +0.1911C/decade respectively yet UAH is only +0.1368C/decade?
bdgwx, you’re going to have to stop drinking and trolling. You’re just becoming a complete wreck, as here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
Get some help.
Clint,
Lets get real here. None of the real skeptics who actually understand meterology such as Joe, Spencer. Christy, agree with you that there is no GHE, no back radiation, fluxes dont add, etc.
Nate, let’s get real here–you can’t understand physics, you make things up, and you’re an idiot.
Let me know if anything changes.
https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-says
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Nate is so servile he isn’t aware that science moved on past the grade school model precisely because fluxes don’t add some 53 years ago. He even serves up the paper describing it without even knowing what the paper says.
Lets we the surface is radiating 396w/m2 the sky 290w/m2. How come they don’t add? Or did they already add? And which added which to which?
Another way to demonstrate the moon spins nobody presented is like this.
Change the moon orbit from round to a square , now go around in four distinct lines , in order to keep the same face of the moon pointing into direction of the motion you have to spin the moon on its axes 90 degrees in every corner in four distinct steps , a clear proof the moon has to spin on its axes ,
Only difference when the orbit is round is that the orbit and the spin is progressing simultaneously and smoothly.
Idiot, learn how gravity “turns” an orbiting body.
Oh sorry, I forgot. Idiots can’t learn.
Oh well, happy trolling!
Eben, orbital motion (without axial rotation) already involves the orbiting object changing its orientation. So, for example, an orbiting object (without rotating on its own axis) already faces through N, E, S and W in order to complete an orbit.
So your point proves nothing…and in fact it has been tried several times before.
Nothing new.
“learn how gravity turns an orbiting body.”
We are all eager to learn how that works. Do tell.
Nate,
The Moon is perpetually falling. From the Sun, say, you can see every side of the Moon, because the Moon is falling towards the Earth, which is falling towards the Sun.
See how simple it is?
Falling not/= turning.
A cannonball has no nose that needs to point forward.
Nate,
You wanted to know how it works. I told you. Now you talk about noses pointing forward.
You cant understand the answer. Or were you just trying for a gotcha?
Flynson,
As usual you are confused.
Clint/DREMT claims gravity causes cannonballs or planets to turn, as in reorient.
But it is simply declared. They offer no evidence.
Nate wanted to know why the moon can appear to rotate while continuously falling towards Earth. I told him. He doesn’t believe me.
Nate is not terribly bright, and refuses to believe that Newtons Law of Gravitation, combined with Newtons Laws of Motion, explain the motion of the Moon!
I prefer Newtons explanation. Nate can choose to believe supernatural forces simultaneously wobbling the Moon up and down, and side to side, whilst simultaneously pushing it in an elliptical orbit, but that is so pre-Newton.
“already involves the orbiting object changing its orientation.”
Nope. Debunked.
eben…”Another way to demonstrate the moon spins nobody presented is like this”.
Your thought experiment, if false, will produce a false answer. Einstein fell prey to the same thing in his thought experiments re relativity when he based time on the hands of a clock. Had he checked a little deeper he’d have learned that position of the hands of a clock are relative to the rate of rotation of the Earth, a constant.
You cannot use a square because the Moon’s orbit is a resultant of its linear momentum and the effect of the Earth’s gravitational field on that linear momentum. The position the Moon faces the Earth is determined by a radial line that always points to a point in an elliptical orbit which is slightly off the Earth’s centre.
The Moon must maintain its linear momentum or it will fall out of orbit. As Clint pointed out, the effect of gravity applies a very slight downward acceleration to the Moon which is compensated by the Moon’s far greater linear momentum. Therefore the Moon is being constantly nudges into a resultant elliptical orbit, in which its orientation changes through a full 360 degrees.
A close look at that orientation reveals that the near face and the far face are always moving parallel to each other and not rotating about the centre. The Moon is always propelled by linear momentum but the resultant path becomes curvilinear translation due to the nudging of gravity.
Did somebody order a word salad ? what dressing you use with that ?
Gordon blubbered:
“The Moon is always propelled by linear momentum but the resultant path becomes curvilinear translation due to the nudging of gravity.”
WRONG! With translation no line in the body can rotate per the definition of translation. An example of curvilinear translation is the seat of a ferris wheel. A translating object cannot change its orientation. The moon is not translating.
Orbital motion is unlike any other motion. That makes it hard to describe using usual terms of motion (kinetics or kinematics).
One solution is to say Moon is “instantaneously translating, while being steered by gravity”. Or Moon is “translating but incrementally changing direction due to gravity”. Either description works, but neither involves “rotating about its axis”, because that is not what is happening.
“One solution is to say Moon is instantaneously translating, while being steered by gravity.
Of course one could say that. But it would be wrong. And please define “instantaneous translation”, and find me a reference confirming that definition.
You guys continually redefine terms to support your position.
Crickets as usual.
https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-says
Tyson, please stop trolling.
With the winds of change blowing, a good time to test predictions of change.
Eben says:
May 5, 2020 at 7:04 PM
“The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will have to wear a parachute just looking at it”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020.2
——————————————————
Scott R says:
July 10, 2019 at 6:31 AM
“El nino update:
…Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina.”
And…
Scott R says:
September 13, 2019 at 7:07 AM
“ENSO update:
…This confirms once again the trend is lower as of today. Still heading towards La Nina.”
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
swannie…” What does happen is that the O2 bands exhibit pressure broadening, which is to say, there is greater emission from the sides of the bands at higher pressure than at lower pressure”.
I’ll give you on thing, you excel at bsing your way through a subject. What is an O2 band? Oxygen does not behave like the Sun, which emits a very broad range of frequencies, it emits one specific frequency depending on its temperature, hence altitude. Near the surface it will emit a different frequency than at 4 km.
The AMSU receivers over 15 bands are tuned so each band has a centre frequency between 50 Ghz and 58 Ghz. The emissions they receive from oxygen come from frequencies generated at different altitudes based on the temperature of the oxygen.
Although oxygen in the atmosphere exists as a diatomic molecule, an emissions from the molecule come from the electrons in individual atoms. Microwave is still an electromagnetic field and the only particle in an atom/molecule that can emit EM is the electron.
Furthermore, the only way an electron can emit EM is by transitioning to a lower energy level and the frequency of its emission is temperature dependent. Hence, hotter O2 molecules at lower altitudes will emit higher frequency microwave than cooler O2 molecules at higher altitudes.
You know the centre oxygen emission frequency of channel 5 is located at 4 km, therefore any other oxygen emissions received in that channel will be proportionately below that centre frequency. By determining the amplitude of a non-centred frequency wrt the centre frequency amplitude, you can establish its frequency and the altitude where it was emitted.
Gordo wrote:
Here we have another blast of Gordo’s delusional physics. I suggest that Gordo needs to understand molecular spectroscopic analysis, including the definition of “lines” and “bands”. One place to begin is THIS WIKI link about HITRAN, though much deeper reading on the subject would be necessary to achieve full understanding. While I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, it’s important to understand that the same physics applies to the emission bands for O2 and the CO2 bands involved with Global Warming.
binny…GR…”The Moon rotates about 13 degrees in a day. Divide 360 degrees by 13 degrees/day and you get 27.7 days. That is roughly the time the Moon takes to orbit the Earth wrt the stars.
Obviously the rotation referenced here is the rotation of the Moon we refer to as orbiting. IF it was rotating at 13 degrees per day on its axis, the same face could not possible always point at the Earth”.
********
You still haven’t answered my point. The rotation of the Moon referenced by NASA or anyone involved with spacecraft trying to land on the Moon are obviously talking about the Moon rotating about the Earth, not its local axis.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The rotation of the Moon referenced by NASA or anyone involved with spacecraft trying to land on the Moon are obviously talking about the Moon rotating about the Earth, not its local axis.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
How do you figure? Asking for a friend.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/dat/lunar_cmd_2005_jpl_d32296.pdf
Snape, landing on Moon has NOTHING to do with an imaginary motion. The orbital motion of Moon is well known. That’s all that is needed to land on its surface.
You’re chasing ghosts. The belief in Moon’s axial rotation is from astrology, centuries ago, and has never been corrected.
ClintR says:
November 7, 2020 at 8:53 AM
“Snape, landing on Moon has NOTHING to do with an imaginary motion. The orbital motion of Moon is well known. That’s all that is needed to land on its surface.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You must be with the Indian space program.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/782890646/2-months-after-failed-moon-landing-india-admits-its-craft-crashed
Back in September, India’s hopes for a historic first ended — inconclusively.
High hopes had been riding on its Chandrayaan-2 orbiter. The spacecraft was sending a landing vehicle down to the moon — an operation that, if successful, would be the first robotic mission at the moon’s unexplored south pole and that would make India only the fourth country in history to make a moon landing.
Unfortunately, it was not to be. At the time, the Indian Space Research Organisation didn’t offer much explanation for the operation’s failure besides an ill-timed loss of contact, adding little more than a terse, “Data is being analyzed.”
Not relevant, Snape.
You’re still chasing ghosts.
https://tinyurl.com/kb4xjzo
Now you’re a child, chasing ghosts.
Grow up.
ClintR says:
November 7, 2020 at 1:34 PM
Now you’re a child, chasing ghosts.
Grow up.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Here’s a reenactment:
NASA: you gots to consider Spin-Orbit Resonance which occurs when there exists a simple integer ratio between the time period of rotation and the orbital time period corresponding to a single body. The Moon has a spin-orbit resonance ratio of 1:1. This means that the time taken by the moon to complete one rotation about its spin axis is equivalent to the time taken by it to complete one orbital revolution around the Earth. Because of this phenomenon, Moon is tidally locked to the Earth and only one side of the Moon faces the Earth at any given time.
India Space Agency (ClintR says):”Snape, landing on Moon has NOTHING to do with an imaginary motion. The orbital motion of Moon is well known. That’s all that is needed to land on its surface.
You’re chasing ghosts. The belief in Moon’s axial rotation is from astrology, centuries ago, and has never been corrected.
Cut to 2019… womp womp womp!
https://tinyurl.com/kb4xjzo
If you don’t account for the moon’s spin you will land about three miles off from your intended target
Eben, what spin?
Moon moves in its orbit about 2200 mph.
Like most idiots, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Make stuff up, Snape.
That’s what you have to do when you’re going against reality.
But, reality always wins. Which makes you a loser.
” ClintR says:
November 7, 2020 at 11:34 AM
Make stuff up, Snape.”
w00t.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Robertson
I gave you lots of answers during the last two years.
You, Robertson, refused all of them, without the tiniest bit of a scientifically valuable argument — and answered with dumbest blah blah instead.
Here is one of many examples.
*
Even if you are shown, in the context of the Apollo 11 mission, an image that shows a circular arrow around an axis, that clearly indicates rotation of the sphere below about that axis, you brazenly pretend it hasn’t anything to do with Moon’s spin:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B-M3FSEtA3ZmMzcJuCDsn349P1Amv8wY/view
You even deliberately ignore the text near the image, though it perfectly explains that a rendez-vous maneuver of an ascending lunar module with the orbiting module evidently has to take account of Moon’s rotation of about 4.62 m/sec during the 21 hr 30 min stay
– what shifts the absolute lunar module’s ascent position at Moon surfaceby over 350 km wrt its absolute position at landing time
and thus
– evidently requests a change of the orbiting module’s plane, in order both modules to meet again without excessive use of propellant by the ascending module.
*
How is it possible to deny that, to behave so stupid, giving the impression of a stubborn, 10 year old child?
You do behave that way because
– you are a reckless and respectless Contrarian and denialist;
– you cowardly lag behind a fake ‘real’ name, so that you can tell the stupidest bullshit without being recognized by relatives, friends or acquaintances.
There is NO WAY to convince people like you and some others, and you all know that.
I repeat: luckily, ignorant and denying people like you, ClintR, DREMT, hunter or Swynnson were never and will never be involved in preparing any spacecraft mission!
LUCKILY!
J.-P. D.
JD, that “4.62 m/sec” is due to Moon’s orbit. If it were really rotating about its axis we would see more that one side of it. But, we only see one side.
The simple analogy of a ball on a string has you beat. It’s called “virkelighet”.
Virkeligheten, ClintR, er dessverre ikke på din side.
Snarere prøver de å skjule virkeligheten.
Hvorfor du gjør dette, hvorfor du forakter så mye historisk og moderne kunnskap, bare du kan vite.
J.-P. D.
Nettopp.
JD, if only you had as much appreciation for physics and reality as you do for languages….
I repeat: luckily, ignorant and denying people like you, ClintR, DREMT, hunter or Swynnson were never and will never be involved in preparing any spacecraft mission!
Anything else, ClintR, is secondary.
You can answer anything to this comment: you won’t change a bit to the facts you deny.
J.-P. D.
That’s a nice straw man you built, JD.
Be careful when you shoot down your own straw men, you don’t shoot your foot off.
Perhaps my warning was too late….
https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-says
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Tyson: here’s an article about the HIV virus which Gordon doesn’t believe exists:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/#:~:text=The%20viral%20envelope%20is%20composed,(CA)%20%5B26%5D.
Biologically complex, but as with the COVID-19 description, you’ll get an overview without having to go into huge detail.
It doesn’t exist? Yeah, right…..
Right on. I’ll take a look.
A tropical storm will hit Cuba and Florida.
Climate craziness was voted out.
Hope republicans can find an intelligent alternative next time.
Roy, any idea why UAH US48 has gone upwards for the last 2 months, while USCRN has gone downwards
They usually behave in a similar direction.
spike55
I replied last month on a nearly identical comment of yours.
You didn’t answer.
But of course, this blog’s most ignorant and most boasting commenter urged in posting his usual lies:
binny … ”But the worldwide GHCN daily data set contains the raw data for all USCRN stations”.
Which raw data are you looking at, the fudged data or the actual data received by GHCN from people actually reading the thermometers?
You are still in denial that NOAA takes the raw temperature data and fudges it. They not only fudge in real time they fudge retroactively to the point where GHCN data is absolutely worthless.
Not only that, they have discarded 90% of the GHCN reporting stations since 1990 and use climate models to recreate the discarded data from adjacent stations up to 1200 km apart.
That’s over land, who knows how they fudge the SST.
*
I therefore suppose that you preferred to believe in Robertson’s lies, didn’t you?
Good grief, spike55…
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Well that was a totally meaningless and empty rant.
Pertaining to absolutely nothing, and totally off topic non-response
Well done.
Quite frankly, I’m not interested in ranting non-answers from raving scientifically-empty loonies.
But do keep going, for everyone to laugh at.
LMAO!
Seems the 13 month average (the red line in the top graph) has equalled the 2016 peak. There is a possibility it will rise even higher, because as the 13 month window moves forward each month, the first month of the window will be warmer each time. That will be the case for the next four months. To offset this, the coming four months must all be colder than the last, and the first would ideally be at least 0.1C colder than the current one (October).
Just checking in for those ‘skeptics’ who vowed temps would drop from 2016 onwards, and who said the red line was never getting back up as high.
As the old saying goes: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The UAH October Global value is “0.54”, basically puts us a half degree above the 12-13 year pause. Up and down, as all the factors continue to move toward that illusive equilibrium.
But we recently got some new “science”. It seems that two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube. No one knew that! But it kinda explains why the Arctic is melting–too much ice. Antarctic just hasn’t learned about the new “science”, yet.
And if anyone remains skeptical that ice can warm itself, here’s the actual calculation from a “PhD”:
((273)^4 + (273)^4)^0.25 = 325 K
Two ice cubes at freezing will result in a temperature of 325 K (51.9C, 125.3F)
(Idiots actually believe such nonsense.)
ClintR says:
“all the factors continue to move toward that illusive equilibrium.”
Elusive because we keep emitting GHGs.
Silly Svante chimes in: “Elusive because we keep emitting GHGs.”
Thankfully!
We need more cooling CO2 to counter the warming from all that ice.
Translated from the lunatic reference frame: less CO2 to save all the ice from melting.
Silly snowflake Svante, are you now denying you own cult nonsense?
Surely you wouldn’t doubt a “PhD”? That’d be like thinking for yourself!
Cultists don’t do that.
Your comment last time was also a pointless load of irrelevant garbage.
Maybe you didn’t read or understand the question.
Or maybe you are just not very intelligent
Try again.. Answer the question.. or just rant mindlessly !
——-
Roy, any idea why UAH US48 has gone upwards for the last 2 months, while USCRN has gone downwards ?
They usually behave in a similar direction.
It’s not that unusual for them to depart from each other.
CRN anomalies: https://tinyurl.com/y5yzvoer
UAH anomalies: https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
Pick the first six months of a range of years and you’ll see they do go in the opposite direction from time to time. Temps in the lower atmosphere do not track temps perfectly on the surface, and least of all when you get to regional level, when local cloud cover and weather can have more of an influence on the result.
No, they generally go the same direction, just by different amounts , Sometime one will stay steady while the other changes.
I can’t see any place where they have gone in totally different directions for two months in a row.
https://i.postimg.cc/1zWFxbMS/USCRN-et-al.png
Its just interesting, is all.
Nearly every year there is at least one month where they go in opposite directions. Some years there are 2 successive months where they go in opposite directions. Happens twice in 2008. It happens less frequently globally, but it does happen from time to time. It’s normal. The surface and the lower troposphere don’t track each other perfectly. No reason for them to do so.
Also Jan->Feb-Mar 2009, if you want a clear example.
Aus->Sep->Oct 2010 as well.
Also Jan->Feb-Mar 2009, if you want a clear example.
Aus->Sep->Oct 2010 as well.
=> Barry
these are very small discrepancies
the last two months have been a very large discrepancy.
An anomaly of some sort or other.
Lets see what happens next month
Sure.
I did a bit of eyeball counting (don’t have my usual software with me). 24 times (not including recent) over the CRN record that UAH/CRN temps deviated in sign. That’s 12% of the time.
Double month sign deviations, including recent, are about 2% of the time.
There have been some equally strong deviations, but not necessarily in sign. Looks like an anomalous event last couple of months, but not outside the bounds of anomalous events.
barry
Nice to see you commenting here again.
You have it clear right, even if I seriously owe spike55 an apology for my really superfluous comment posted last night!
But sometimes it’s a little hard to stay in control when you’re constantly confronted with stubborn views about things that were explored centuries ago.
*
Nonetheless, I had one more time some interest for a today’s comparison of the CRN corner within GHCN daily not only with UAH in the LT, but with the entire GHCN daily data set for CONUS as well.
{ I use the GHCN daily raw data for CRN, because the adjusted CRN and USHCN corners never interested me, as they are US local; you can’t compare them with data outside of the US. }
Here are the three:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nIMDGEXuDv7KpO5j5g2olHg_–v_05dS/view
I’m a bit surprised about the differences between spike’s graph and mine, but this might be due to both different reference periods, and spike using adjusted CRN data.
I choosed 2019-2019 because 140 of the 233 CRN stations had sufficient data for building departures from the mean of that period.
What I’m less surprised about is the difference, for 2004-2020, between the estimates for the GHCN CRN corner and all GHCN CONUS stations: 0.54 +- 0.11 C / decade vs. 0.31 +- 0.13, the latter being a far better fit to UAH48 in the same period (0.27 +- 0.10).
The reason for such a difference might be due to the fact that while the CONUS average relies on about 7,000 stations each year located in 170 2.5 degree grid cells, the CRN average is obtained by yearly no more than 140 stations located within 100 cells.
Rgds from near Berlin in Germoney
J.-P. D.
Hello Bindidon,
It’s been a busy year. I’m currently in Aukland, New Zealand, heading back to Sydney in a couple of weeks. Sure has been an interesting year. I think it gets the title ‘Annus Horribilus.’
Yes, I saw that you had misunderstood spike. I also figured that you would realize and acknowledge it. These things can happen when the temperature rises (hope you don’t mind the pun). It’s been quite good being too busy to participate here.
Stepping away has also given some perspective on the endlessly cycled arguments. Not just that they are a form of madness, but also clarity on them. Eg, any valid moon rotation difference is purely about differences in frame of reference, and everything else is guff. I had that opinion before but coming back and coolly reading the comments makes it even more obvious.
So I don’t plan to get too invested in these arguments.
Hope you are well and that the year has not been too unkind to you.
Wrong barry, Moon rotation is NOT about “differences in frame of reference”” That’s why the simple analogies are so hated by you idiots. The wooden horse is not rotating about is axis, because it is bolted to the floor. And if the ball on a string were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap about the ball. “Rotating about its axis” is not based on frame of reference, it’s based on reality.
But thanks for letting us know why you “don’t plan to get too invested in these arguments” — you know your side is wrong.
Get off your high/wooden horse ClintR.
Another day of trolling, for the childish snowflake Svante.
I agree with Bindidon, and don’t waste your time on people like ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).
I do appreciate it when you correct people like Bindidon and me.
Silly Svante, you require constant correcting.
You figure out how to turn your 160 W/m^2 into 640 W/m^2 yet?
Hint: It can NOT be done!
You’re such an idiot.
Thank you.
barry
Thanks for the answer, we are fine. Rose had a battle with cancer a few years ago, so caution is advised, we avoid unnecessary contact.
Hope you all do well too in your downunder corner!
J.-P. D.
bill hunter says:
Good advice, make sure your sources are scientific and not from some blog.
Absolutely Svante. Blogs are a good place to find relevant scientific references. For example, DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG. All the other bloggers are just self-flagellating. I had never considered this issue until here but listened to the arguments and mostly asked why it matters. DREMT produced in the
form of a reference why it matters and nobody else did.
DREMT produced nothing in the form of a reference on moon rotation Bill. Madhavi paper does not mention the moon at all. Try again to find a science paper supporting the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT has provided some great research. But it gets ignored by the idiots that believe the wooden horse bolted to the rotating platform is nevertheless rotating about its axis. You just can’t help stupid.
The ball on a string is the direct evidence that Moon is not rotating about its axis. But, that gets ignored also.
The science behind the issue comes from Newton. He noticed that some orbiting bodies rotated about their axes, while Moon did not. To determine what effect gravity had on Moon, Newton had to develop calculus. From his work, we know that orbital motion is the same as a ball on a string. Gravity does not induce axial rotation. A body without axial rotation aways has the same side facing the center of orbit.
DREMT has provided no great research. Analogies are not research. Use Newton’s words not yours.
“he science behind the issue comes from Newton. He noticed that some orbiting bodies rotated about their axes, while Moon did not.”
FALSE. He explicitly stated the opposite. And you know it douche bag, troll
Youve lost on the facts. Oh well. Whats left? Just lie.
Ball4, I remember you. You were the one that kept claiming the wooden horse was rotating about its axis. That’s why we had to specify the horse was securely fastened to the platform and couldn’t rotate. But, you continued to claim it was rotating about its axis. That’s when we knew you were an idiot.
And, nothing has changed….
Analogies are not moon research ClintR. Bolted or not bolted wooden horses are immaterial, they are not the moon. Come up with some moon science research as your position is long lost. Use Newton’s words not your words.
Oh oh, here comes the argument that wooden horses reside in their own universe with their own set of physical laws. LMAO!
Your mom must have given you a pony ride when you were little and you never got off riding that little pony in circles forever.
You’re an idiot, Ball4.
In order to not be an idiot, you have to accept reality. You have to admit that the bolted wooden horse is NOT rotating about its axis. You claim the wooden horse is immaterial. Then why can’t you admit it is not rotating on its axis? You can’t accept reality because the horse has the same motion as Moon.
So, you’re trapped in your own nonsense, by reality.
Being immaterial, nothing matters about wooden horse rotation ClintR. It is a failed analogy.
Throwing out evidence that doesn’t support your beliefs, Ball4?
That’s why idiots don’t make good scientists.
No, throwing out failed analogies. Perhaps ClintR can actually use the moon when discussing the moon motion kinematics. I doubt it because then ClintR would find the evidence doesn’t support ClintR’s failed no moon rotation on its own axis beliefs.
Ball4 says:
DREMT produced nothing in the form of a reference on moon rotation Bill. Madhavi paper does not mention the moon at all. Try again to find a science paper supporting the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
===============================
The Madhavi paper has relevance throughout the engineered world. She mention millions of things she could have mention. She is teaching principles here that don’t change from object to object.
And, still, Prof. Madhavi does NOT mention moon rotation. ClintR runs back to wooden horses and balls on string instead of research on the moon. Very telling that ClintR and bill know they are wrong, in fact the moon does rotate on its own axis once per rev. of Earth contrary to their cult’s failed position.
The sun rises and sets on the rotating on its own axis moon just like the rest of the stars.
Ball4,
Once again its a paper on physics. Physics papers don’t mention every one of the billions of objects that fall into the purview Ball4. Your argument is vacuous and stupid.
Newton’s work showed that an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, would have one side always facing the center of the orbit, just as Moon.
That’s why the idiots hate the simple analogy of a ball on a string.
Here’s the moon on a string for you.
https://www.britannica.com/video/185629/role-gravity-Earth-hemisphere-planet-Moon
They got the fact that only one side faces Earth correct. The “bulging” nonsense is easily debunked, but not by idiots:
“If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
To someone that understands gravity, this is farcical. But I bet not one of the idiots can find what’s wrong with it. Bindidon, bdgwx, bobdroege, Ball4, Norman, Snape, Svante, Nate, barry, SGW, E. Swanson, not one can find what’s wrong.
Idiots.
“Newton’s work showed that an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, would have one side always facing the center of the orbit, just as Moon.”
Nope, by now everyone here has seen Newton’s quotes, and knows that you are simply straight up lying.
Keep up the good work that got you banned twice before.
Three more to invite to take part in the challenge: Eben, Fritz Kraut, and Tim Folkerts.
I think that’s all?
bill 8:33am you wrote: “DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG.”
DREMT has NOT ever done so, THAT is a vacuous and stupid argument as the Madhavi science ref. provides NO demonstrable reference to the moon rotation on its own axis or about earth cg despite your repeated comments to the contrary. Sure, it’s a kinematics paper not an astronomy paper which you (or your cult) have yet to produce to try & support your failed position that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Demonstrably the sun rises and sets on the rotating on its own axis primary moon of Earth just like the rest of the stars.
ClintR 8:53am it is immaterial for anyone hating or loving any failed analogy for the moon rotating on its own axis to where you often run away. Produce an astronomer’s accurate moon science ref. for your failed position, you won’t because you can’t. Hint: Prof. Madhavi doesn’t even mention the moon.
Ball4
Madhavi is laying out physics principles Ball4. She doesn’t need to name everything.
Are you claiming Newtonian gravity doesn’t apply to you because Newton didn’t name Ball4 in his work?
Of course not, no one is claiming Newton mentioned that. bill is wrongly claiming: “DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG.”
DREMT provided nothing of the sort. ClintR uses his own words for what ClintR claims Newton wrote; DREMT uses his own words for what DREMT claims Madhavi wrote. These types of comments from ClintR and DREMT (and bill) prove vacuous and stupid.
Just read the paper Ball4. Figure 2(b) is an illustration of rotation on an external axis.
Those are only your words bill, not Madhavi’s, yes, you really should read the paper.
Madhavi: “the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
There you go bill; now you can accurately quote Prof. Madhavi. bill has no further excuse for inaccuracy. Demonstrating this earlier comment of bill’s is vacuous and stupid: “DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG.”
DREMT only linked a kinematic science ref. that wrote: “the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
Ball4 says:
the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles on an external axis.
All the particles are going in concentric circles Ball4.
All spin and thus angular momentum has to be assigned an axis. If you start up a merry-go-round all torque is in relationship to the merry-go-round axle.
You must supply the ponies on the merry-go-round their own torque on their own axle. And of course when you do that, no torques is applied to the merry-go-round axle. So it should be easy for you to use Madhavi and then know how to build a merry-go-round. If you can’t figure that out, then find a different career.
Well, isn’t that special.
Bill claims that DREMPTY found a scientific reference that shows that the Moon rotates around the Earth’s center of gravity.
That’s special.
You guys need some serious help.
Since you can’t seem to find it here you are again Bob.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Bill,
I think you linked to the wrong source.
Would you be so kind as to try again.
Anyway, the Moon orbits the Earth-Moon barycenter.
Is that what you meant by the Earth’s center of gravity?
But none of that is in Dr. Madhavi’s textbook.
Dumshiit.
I know Newton talked about apples Bob. Did he talk about peaches and avocados?
bill,
Did you even read the paper????????????????????????????
How about finding a quote from it with the word “Moon”
According to this quote, the text proves the Moon rotates
Fig.6 Rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis
The motion of a rigid body rotating about a fixed axis AA is said to be known when its angular coordinate
can be expressed as a known function of t. In practice, however the rotation of a rigid body is seldom defined
by a relation between More often, the conditions of motion will be specified by the type of angular
acceleration that the body possesses. For example, α may be given as a function of t, as a function of, or as a
function of ω. –
Of course Bob. Bottom line failure to mention a certain class of objects is broadly taken in physics to include all objects within connected systems. If it doesn’t then a science paper is required to establish such divisions.
Bill,
Yeah right,
Madhavi proved the Moon is rotating on its axis because it spins like in fig 6.
Actually, figure 2(b) is perfectly suited to demonstrating that an orbiting object keeping the same face to the object being orbited is also rotating.
It also demonstrates that the ball on a string is rotating.
It shows a plate rotating about an external axis, and is clearly marked as “rotation.”
Gotta love these reputable sources.
Yes, barry. The plate in Fig. 2(b) is rotating, but not on its own axis. It is rotating about point O. You’re starting to get it.
UAH TLS came in at -0.74. This is the coldest October on record by a considerable margin.
In terms of TLT minus TLS the October value was +1.28C which is second place to the September value of +1.33C.
Yes, Solar Minimum has ended, about 6 months later than NASA prediction.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 5, 2020 at 10:29 PM
“First of all, we need to find the virus. No one has ever seen it, just like HIV. When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement.
This is not a conspiracy theory, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV, that he inferred it. Furthermore, he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. Ironically, some idiots are now bringing out a new test for HIV that you can use at home. Oh, how the money rolls in.
There is obviously something hurting people throughout the world but every time something like that comes along, scientists go looking for a virus right away. If they cant find direct evidence, they make it up.
Id hold off on your jade amulets for a bit till intelligent scientists have a chance to assess the situation rather than the wannabees collection big bucks re funding and patents. Then again, that could take a century. One day, well be the laughing stock of future generations.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
It is settled, Gordon Robertson is a bullshit artist. The first clue is when he says “When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement’ as if science was some kind of Democracy where the majority rules; he obviously does not understand that science is a cruel dictatorship where evidence dictates.
Exhibit 1 is when he says “This is not a conspiracy theory, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV, that he inferred it.”
Why say something that can easily be verified with a simple internet search? He may be a pathological liar. In his Nobel Prize lecture Montagnier said “On January 3, 1983, I received a biopsy of a patient with cervical adenopathy, a symptom already recognized as an early sign of AIDS. we could propagate the virus in cultures of lymphocytes from adult blood donors as well as in lymphocytes from cord blood. This allowed characterization of the virus Electron microscopy of sections of the original lymph node biopsy, as well as those from infected cultured lymphocytes, showed rare viral particles with a dense conical core The same type of virus was isolated from patients of different origins The Jay Levy group in San Francisco also isolated the same kind of virus, followed by many other laboratories.”
Montagnier’s lecture is here: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/montagnier_lecture.pdf
Gordon Robertson goes on to say “Furthermore, he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.” I have found no evidence that Montagnier ever said this but based on the evidence I doubt it.
I do agree with one thing Robertson said, “One day, we’ll be the laughing stock of future generations” if by we he means Gordon Robertson and his enablers, and if by one day you mean right now because I’m LMFAO.
tyson…”Why say something that can easily be verified with a simple internet search?”
Then again, why should anyone listen to an idiot who changes his nym constantly. Snape disappears and tyson appears.
In your quote, Montagnier did not claim to have seen HIV, on an electron microscope, he stated…”This allowed characterization of the virus Electron microscopy of sections of the original lymph node biopsy…”
One of the members of his team, Baree-Sinoussi, sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute in which they laid down the framework for isolating a virus. The first step was isolating the virus and the next step was purifying it. Looking at a slice from a lymph node and claiming dark spots on the slice as a virus is neither isolation nor purification.
In fact, Montagnier has admitted he has never seen HIV. He admitted they tried to isolate and purify the virus but when they looked at the isolated specimen on an electron microscope they saw no virus. The specimen was too contaminated.
It’s all here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4
So, you are now saying that Fig. 2 from Montagnier’s lecture is a fabrication?
what figure 2?
You can understand why these threads get so off-topic. With the Green Plate (and thus House) Effect debunked, AGW is finished. So it was inevitable we would move on to discussing other things.
And DREMT is just as wrong about AGW as DREMT is wrong about the other things.
Green Plate Effect proponents claim:
Plates pushed together = 244 K…244 K
Separate plates by 1mm = 262 K…220 K.
An increase of 18 K in the blue plate, and a decrease of 24 K in the green, merely by separating the plates!? No change in power in or out, which remains at 400 W in, 400 W out, in both cases!?
Don’t be silly.
Radiative energy transfer and conductive energy transfer are fundamentally different processes & eqn.s DREMT with different results.
See, they actually try to defend it!
The funniest one is their claim that two ice cubes are warmer than one. By their “science”, 4 ice cubes would boil water!
Idiots.
ball4…”Radiative energy transfer and conductive energy transfer are fundamentally different processes…”
Tripping all over yourself because you can’t use the word heat, as in heat transfer. According to you, heat is the name of the transfer process and not the energy transferred. Yet anyone with half a brain knows the energy transferred is heat. So, you think heat is a process that transfers heat.
I don’t think that Gordon, what you wrote makes no thermodynamic sense. I know heat is the total KE of the object’s constituent particles – see Clausius 1st memoir for the formula and exact def. wording.
“The funniest one is their claim that two ice cubes are warmer than one. By their “science”, 4 ice cubes would boil water!”
They do come out with some classics.
In memory of Alex Trebeck and also to poke at the non-spinner crowd here is a question from Jeopardy show # 4222 of December 31, 2002, Double Jeopardy round for $ 400:
“The number of times the moon rotates on its axis during each trip around the Earth”
https://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2899
Snape, you don’t have to use game shows for your nonsense. You can go directly to NASA. The Moon nonsense started with Cassini and his astrology. It has never been corrected, and is now promoted.
If you copy a mistake 100 times, how many mistakes do you have?
Duly noted!
I need to give you a nick name too. I’ll think of a good one!
tyson…”The number of times the moon rotates on its axis during each trip around the Earth”
So, now science is based on questions from jeopardy. Climate science is based on how many people think the anthropogenic theory is correct.
The current US election has been decided by Associated Press. A buffoon on CBC television, Adrienne Arsenaux, was outraged when Trump claimed he won. She indignantly claimed it was not up to him to make the decision, it was up to Associated Press.
The so-called covid virus has been claimed by consensus. No one has ever seen the virus on an electron microscope, it was inferred, like HIV, based on retroviral theory, which has been questioned since its introduction in the 1970s. Now they are rushing out a vaccine that can affect human DNA based on consensus.
Chief scientist Bill Gates has approved the vaccine. He learned about it from computer viruses.
You sound a little unhinged this morning; don’t go spinning out of control now!
snape…”…dont go spinning out of control now!”
I’m fine, it’s you I’m worried about. You seem to have reached the stage where you have become a thought experiment.
Your posts make less and less sense, but regardless, I think you mean to call me Snopes don’t you, since I’ve outed your BS beyond all doubt.
ClintR
” The science behind the issue comes from Newton. He noticed that some orbiting bodies rotated about their axes, while Moon did not. ”
*
Why do you permanently try to ignore and hide what Newton wrote about the Moon?
From Newton’s Principia Scientifica, Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV
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′.
…
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.
*
Is is evident from Newton’s words that he
– understands with the word ‘revolve’ a rotation, and not an orbit;
– deduced, out of both Cassini’s empirical laws and Mayer’s observations, that Moon’s orbit and rotation periods must be identical (he told Mercator in 1675 about that).
*
You can insult anybody here by naming her/him an idiot, ClintR, like does your friend-in-denial Robertson. No problem.
But your & his endless trials to distort Cassini’s, Mayer’s, Newton’s, Lagrange’s and Laplace’s work will ever fail.
J.-P. D.
JD, you really have no clue about orbital motion. You’re just like Norman. You search the Web until you find something that you believe fits your beliefs. Then, you start another keyboard exercise leading to nothing.
If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth. But, it is ONLY orbiting, not rotating about its axis. You can’t figure it out.
ClintR
” You search the Web until you find something that you believe fits your beliefs. ”
No. I simply reproduce the official English translation (by Andrew Motte in 1729), of Newton’s original work written in Latin, and published in 1726:
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
You can lie, lie and lie again as long as you want, ClintR, if you feel such a need to be viewed as a liar.
But Newton’s work you can’t misinterpret, let alone distort.
*
” If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth. ”
This is what ignorants like you and some others say, and is perfectly similar to what Flatearthists pretend about Earth not being a sphere. That is exactly the same, stupid discourse.
*
You are so stubborn that even if I would perfectly reproduce — by using e.g. MATLAB’s differential motion equation solver — Earth’s and Moon’s orbits and spins, and show you that we see one side of the Moon JUST BECAUSE it rotates in the same time as it orbits, you still would stay in denying the fact.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you don’t know crap about physics or orbital motion. Anyone with a basic knowledge of either could find what is wrong with this:
“If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
Show us you’re not an idiot, JD. Tell us what’s wrong with that nonsense.
ClintR
No, no, no…
You behave here exactly like the two deniers ge*r*an and JD*Huffman.
Stop sitting comfortably in the teacher’s chair without explaining anything, and telling everyone that what s/he wrote is wrong. That is too simple.
You, ClintR, will show us today you are not an idiot, by telling us EXACTLY what is wrong with that sentence you posted above.
I guess I’ll have to wait for a while before obtaining a really scientific explanation from your side.
Allez, ClintR, un peu de courage, et au travail!
J.-P. D.
JD, I knew you couldn’t figure out the obvious flaws. You don’t have a clue about physics or orbtial motion.
Thanks for confirming the obvious.
ClintR
You just confirmed above what I had anticipated:
” I guess Ill have to wait for a while before obtaining a really scientific explanation from your side. ”
Mange takk!
J.-P. D.
You just cannot expect real debate with Clint.
He simply lies, cheats, obfuscates, twists your words, plays childish games, and ultimately gets banned. He is only here to troll.
Gosh Nate, full of hate, maybe you can tell us why this is wrong:
“If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
We both know that’s not going to happen….
Cuz its made up physics. Maybe you can explain why you lie so much?
No idiot! That’s the nonsense your cult believes in. That’s the nonsense explaining “tidal locking”.
You don’t even understand your own cult’s teachings!
No wonder you’re full of hate, Nate. You can’t learn anything.
binny…” If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
This is what ignorants like you and some others say, and is perfectly similar to what Flatearthists pretend about Earth not being a sphere. That is exactly the same, stupid discourse”.
I have proved it and you have offered nothing to disprove my proof. All you can offer is ad homs, insults, and obscure references to ancient science.
fritz…”Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles or do You not?
Simple question”.
I do and I have proved why, not believed why, but proved why. No one has disproved what I have claimed, that a radial line through the Moon from the Earth’s centre, has a perpendicular tangent line at the near face and the far face that are always turning in parallel. That rules out rotation about a local axis. Furthermore, you can see it in any of the models that have been presented.
Hey, astronomers are still talking about the Big Bang, a ludicrous theory that claims the present universe emerged from nothing in a Big Bang. They are constantly discovering planets around distant stars that no one has seen.
Robertson
” I do and I have proved why, not believed why, but proved why. ”
YOU never proved here anything. You were showing up with an egocentric claim based on NOTHING scientific!
binny…”YOU never proved here anything. You were showing up with an egocentric claim based on NOTHING scientific!”
How would an idiot like you, who cannot function without appealing to the authority of ancient scientists, understand anything about real science? I gave you a dumbed-down version of real physics and you still don’t get it.
In fact, I have never heard any physics from you. What are you, a wannabee statistician? You’re not even good at that.
bdgwx
” UAH TLS came in at -0.74. This is the coldest October on record by a considerable margin. ”
This is correct; but a look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qZX7wJQwavMbcBsY6IjAhwAOpAkSY8Rf/view
might be interesting as well.
What was the cause of this sudden, high LS peak?
J.-P. D.
There was blog post about that.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/australia-bushfire-smoke-now-warming-the-lower-stratosphere/
Austrian wildfires was a hypothesis.
bdgwx
You are right, I now remember the discussion.
J.-P. D.
barry…”any valid moon rotation difference is purely about differences in frame of reference, and everything else is guff”.
What is it about frames of reference you fail to understand? What you are claiming is essentially this: if you are walking down a street in your neighbourhood, that in some other frame of reference you are not.
Frames of reference are for the convenience of the limited human mind. If the Moon is not rotating in is local frame of reference, which included the 2-D orbital plane centred on the Earth then it is not rotating in any frame of reference.
You are suggesting there are sci-fi frames of reference where reality can change. You are talking about relative motion as perceived by a human mind and how the human mind can see anything it wants, even if it isn’t real.
GR,
We’ve already established that the disagreement is primarily with the definition of “rotate about its own axis”.
It is universally accepted (sans a few posters on this blog) that it is defined as non-zero angular velocity in a frame where radius r=0 goes through the body’s center of mass and angle a=0 if fixed to a distant point like another star or feature on the CMB.
The contrarians on this blog uses a different definition though. The most common is that it is non-zero angular velocity in a frame where radius r=0 goes through the body’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to the body being orbited (instead of the body itself). Another definition thrown out on this blog is where radius r=0 goes through the orbited body (instead of the body itself) and with angle a=0 being fixed to a distant point.
It is important to understand that neither side disputes the angular velocities being computed in the various frames being discussed. The dispute is over which words to use when describing motions in these different frames.
And to summarize this more succinctly…
If body A is the body in question and body B is one that A is orbiting then…
#1 (widely accepted): Radius r=0 goes through body A and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point like a far away star or feature on the CMB.
#2 (contrarian): Radius r=0 goes through body A and angle a=0 is fixed to body B.
#3 (contrarian): Radius r=0 goes through body B and angle a=0 is fixed to to a distant point like a far away star or feature on the CMB.
I’m seeing #2 being used most frequently by the contrarians here.
The discussion is not about frames of reference. It is simply about two opposing ways of defining “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
Upthread, I have been trying to explain to you why looking at an inertial reference frame where radius r=0 goes through the orbiting body’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point will lead you to the wrong conclusion over whether an orbiting object is rotating on its own axis or not. Frankly, you are not listening to me.
I am listening to you. I’m just putting it into a more formal mathematical description.
Non-spinners are using…
Frame #1 (orbital motion): r=0 at the Sun and a=0 fixed at a distant point
Frame #2 (axial motion): r=0 at the Moon and a=0 fixed at the Earth
…while the spinners are using…
Frame #1 (orbital motion): r=0 at the Sun and a=0 fixed at a distant point
Frame #3 (axial motion): r=0 at the Moon and a=0 fixed at a distant point
…that’s the difference. Non-spinners and spinners alike get 0 rad/s for frame #2 and 2.66e-6 rad/s for frame #3.
The discrepancy is regarding which frame (#2 or #3) we use for “axial motion” or “rotate about its own axis”.
Neither of us are more right than the other in regards to the value we obtain for angular velocity in our respective frames.
But your assertion that the Moon is “not rotating” is valid only in the sense that you’ve defined “rotating” differently than everyone else.
It’s not that we don’t accept the claim that the Moon doesn’t change orientation wrt to the Earth. We actually do. It’s that we don’t accept the demand to use the word “rotate” when describing this concept because that word already has a long established history of being used for a completely different concept.
And there’s a good reason for sticking with frame #2 as the convention. It is an inertial frame which means angular momentum is conserved in this frame. That can and often is exploited. Frame #3 is non-inertial so angular momentum is NOT conserved in this frame (with caveats) which could lead to wrong conclusions regarding the behavior of the body’s orientation wrt to its gravitationally bound host under conditions in which its orbit with that host body is perturbed by an outside force.
You claim you are listening, and then write a comment proving you are not listening.
I repeat:
The discussion is not about frames of reference. It is simply about two opposing ways of defining “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
My gosh bdgwx, what a disastrous attempt at distortion!
No wonder you idiots hate simple analogies.
DREMT,
You just said the same thing I did. You just did it with less mathematical formalism. I’m trying to help you out here by translating your language to the mathematical language that the rest of us use.
Wrong, bdgwx. We are not saying the same thing.
You also might like to correct the other errors in your post:
1) Nobody is putting r=0 through the center of mass of the sun, as you have written. You presumably mean the Earth/moon barycenter, as the moon is revolving around that.
2) What you have labelled Frame #2 and #3 you mix up during your discussion. Presumably you mean Frame #3 is an inertial frame but you write that it is non-inertial.
bdgwx, here’s another example of your “mathematical language”:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2. You then decided that Earth must emit 480 W/m^2 as well because…I don’t know…reasons I guess. Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K. Just remember…you came up with the ficticious 303K and 231.7K figures.”
You can’t make sense out of your own “mathematical language”, AKA “bull excretment”.
DREMT said: 1) Nobody is putting r=0 through the center of mass of the sun, as you have written. You presumably mean the Earth/moon barycenter, as the moon is revolving around that.
Yikes. Absolutely. I definitely mean the Earth/Moon barycenter on that. My apologies for that mistake.
DREMT said: 2) What you have labelled Frame #2 and #3 you mix up during your discussion. Presumably you mean Frame #3 is an inertial frame but you write that it is non-inertial.
Yikes again. Absolutely. In my last paragraph I switched #2 and #3 inadvertently. I really need to be more careful.
Ok, with these corrections do you agree that we are talking about the same thing?
No, because as I explained, the one thing the "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" absolutely do not agree on, is how "orbital motion without axial rotation" is defined. And by "defined" I mean – what the orientation of the orbiting object is, whilst it moves through its orbit. You are writing as though we both agree on orbital motion, but disagree on how axial rotation is defined. More or less the complete opposite of what I’m saying, I’m afraid!
Hmm…ok. Would you mind defining (mathematically) what you call “orbital motion”? In other words, how do I calculate it?
DREMPTY,
NOPE!
“The Spinners define orbital motion without axial rotation as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.”
We don’t define either that way.
We define an orbit as a path around another object.
We define rotation as Modhavi does
Fig.6 Rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis
The motion of a rigid body rotating about a fixed axis AA is said to be known when its angular coordinate
can be expressed as a known function of t. In practice, however the rotation of a rigid body is seldom defined
by a relation between More often, the conditions of motion will be specified by the type of angular
acceleration that the body possesses. For example, α may be given as a function of t, as a function of, or as a
function of ω. –
"We don’t define either that way."
Actually, you do, blob. I know you won’t understand, but this is your argument:
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit."
…and you’re stuck with it.
We define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as…
abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s AND abs(Ws) = 0 rad/s
…where
– Wo is the angular velocity on the frame where radius r=0 goes through the gravitational host body (or the mutual barycenter) and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point
– Ws is the angular velocity on the frame where radius r=0 goes through the body itself and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point
DREMPTY,
Nope, that term is your cult’s term, you got to live with it, I don’t accept it as valid definition.
Try reading an Astronomy textbook and see if it is used there.
We keep the definitions of rotation and orbiting separate, always have, always will.
And by the way, you lost the argument a long time ago.
"We keep the definitions of rotation and orbiting separate, always have, always will"
Yes, indeed. Us too. And in order to separate them, you need to state how the orbiting object is oriented when it is orbiting without rotating on its own axis.
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout."
It’s that simple. And, because it’s that simple, you have to try to obfuscate. You especially, bdgwx.
DREMT, something isn’t clicking here. As we’ve already established the disagreement is with the definitions. In an effort to provide clarity on the matter I just provided the definition we and every other scientific institution has adopted. Yet your response is essentially “nuh-uh”. I’m not expecting you to accept the definition (though you should). I’m only expecting you to be able to understand it. Is there something I need to clarify?
I understand it, that’s why I’m correcting you.
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit."
DREMPTY,
Nope, that’s how we define something that isn’t rotating.
It could be orbiting, or not orbiting, moving or not moving.
blob, you sure do “nope” a lot.
The reality is:
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.”
Whether you accept that, or not!
Nope
nope
nope
nope
you’ve been pwned.
OK, blob.
DREMT and Clint lost the argument when they asked people to believe they were right and Newton was wrong about the moon’s rotation.
bdg…”It is universally accepted (sans a few posters on this blog) that it is defined as non-zero angular velocity in a frame where radius r=0 goes through the bodys center of mass and angle a=0 if fixed to a distant point like another star or feature on the CMB.”
When you can’t explain something, resort to bafflegab and red-herring arguments.
Once again, if the Moon is not rotating about it’s local axis in one frame of reference it is not rotating about its axis in any frame of reference.
The Sun appears from our frame of reference to rise in the east, cross the sky and set in the west. Does that mean the Sun is rotating around the Earth, like the Moon?
You need to distinguish between the mind’s propensity for illusion and the actuality of the real universe. Most of living beings don’t give a hoot about the illusions of the human mind. When we humans get to that state, and we can through awareness, then we are free to look at actuality without the distortions.
Go back and look at the Moon from that perspective, without the illusions, and it becomes plain that it is not rotating on a local axis.
What you are doing is expecting to find a local rotation and you are finding it, albeit as an illusion. Look harder and you will see the near side and far side are always moving parallel to each other along the orbital path. It stands out like a sore thumb once you get past the illusion that both sides are rotating around the centre.
Gordon says: “…the near side and far side are always moving parallel to each other…”
Exactly. The near side is like one rail of a train track. The far side is the other rail. The train track makes a large oval. The train is then orbiting but not rotating about its axis. It’s the same motion as the ball on a string.
GR said: When you cant explain something, resort to bafflegab and red-herring arguments.
What are you not understanding about radius r=0 going through a body’s center of mass and angle a=0 fixed to a distant point?
GR said: Once again, if the Moon is not rotating about its local axis in one frame of reference it is not rotating about its axis in any frame of reference.
That just simply isn’t true.
Frame #1: radius r=0 goes through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant star. The angular velocity in this frame is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
Frame #2: radius r=0 goes through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to the Earth. The angular velocity in this frame is 0 rad/s.
As you can see we different answers depending on how the frame is chosen.
GR said: Go back and look at the Moon from that perspective, without the illusions, and it becomes plain that it is not rotating on a local axis.
With radius r=0 through the Moon and angle a=0 fixed at a distant point the angular velocity of the Moon is 2.66e-6 rad/s. This is a period of 27.3 days.
GR said: What you are doing is expecting to find a local rotation and you are finding it, albeit as an illusion.
The Moon’s rotational period of 27.3 wrt to a rotationally inertial frame is not an illusion. It is real.
Sorry bdgwx, but you are simply ineducable. The discussion has nothing to do with reference frames. Once again:
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
That’s not how we define it.
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined as…
abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s where Wo is the angular velocity defined in the frame where radius r=0 goes through gravitational host body and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point. Wo is said to be the orbital angular velocity.
AND
abs(Ws) = 0 rad/s where Ws in the angular velocity defined in the frame where radius r=0 goes through the body in question and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point. Ws is said to be the spin angular velocity.
And to summarize…
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is the condition Wo > 0 rad/s AND Ws = 0 rad/s.
"That’s not how we define it."
Yes, it is.
bdgwx lost it long ago. He doesn’t even understand his own comments.
He keeps hiding when asked to explain this nonsense:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2. You then decided that Earth must emit 480 W/m^2 as well because…I don’t know…reasons I guess. Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K. Just remember…you came up with the ficticious 303K and 231.7K figures.”
DREMT said: Yes, it is.
No it is. What you are writing and I’m writing are not equivalent.
I’ll repeat, we define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as the condition where abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s AND abs(Ws) = 0 rad/s where Wo is the angular velocity in the frame centered on the gravitational host (or mutual barycenter) and Ws is the angular velocity in the frame centered on the body itself.
It’s just a definition. Like I said above I’m not expecting you to accept it (though you should). But I am expecting you to understand it.
I understand it, that’s why I’m correcting you.
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit."
barry…”Just checking in for those skeptics who vowed temps would drop from 2016 onwards, and who said the red line was never getting back up as high”.
You are checking in to gloat, I wonder if you’ll be around if ans when the anomalies go back toward the baseline in a serious way.
This skeptic has only ever claimed that any warming is not caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere. We have a dynamic atmosphere-surface-ocean interface that is not at all understood as to its eccentricities. No one knows what is going on right now.
I’ve already said that it is quite possible there will be a temporary dip below the baseline.
I’m not here to gloat. It just so happens that ‘skeptics’ are on the wrong side of physics, so they keep making the wrong predictions. Confronting deniers of science with their failures is satisfying. Who knows, maybe they might stop denying science when they see their predictions continually fail. They would, if they followed the scientific method, right?
Robertson
” I have proved it and you have offered nothing to disprove my proof.
All you can offer is ad homs, insults, … ”
*
For the umpteenth time:
1. YOU, Robertson, are the one who insults others. I insult you BACK. Stop insulting me and others, and I’ll then stop insulting you.
*
2. You NEVER and NEVER did prove anything scientifically valuable on this blog, regardless what you wrote about. You post ridiculous claims, solely based on your egocentric narrative, and that’s all, Robertson.
*
3. It is not MY job to disprove your trivial scienceless nonsense; it is YOUR job to disprove complex, scientific matter discovered and described by Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange and Laplace.
But that is exactly what people like you are absolutely unable to do.
You are not even able to do the simplest job of downloading temperature data from anywhere and to make a graph out of it.
All you are able to is to discredit and to denigrate what is done by others, instead of correctly contradicting it by using own, similar work.
What could we expect form a person denigrating theoretical work done by Lagrange, while not even knowing and understanding basics like an integral?
And do you really want, using your simple-minded coin example, to contradict persons who were educated to understand and set up differential equations describing all motions of celestial bodies?
Pfff.
And the very best is when you are brazen enough to add, SPEAKING ABOUT NEWTON’ WORK:
” … and obscure references to ancient science. ”
This is really the most ignorant fuss I have ever read.
You are such an ignorant coward, Robertson …
J.-P. D.
JD, we know you can lash out at people outside your cult. We know you can type endlessly on your keyboard. We know you can search for irrelevant things on the Web.
And we also know you are ignorant of physics and orbital motion, as is the rest of your cult.
The majority of first year college physics students could find the problems with this nonsense:
What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.
But your cult can’t find any problems with it, yet they all pretend to be experts on the subject.
That’s why you’re all idiots.
Pfff…
ClintR, Sie sind ganz einfach krank im Hirn.
J.-P. D.
Without some correct answers, you have no credibility.
ClintR
” We know you can search for irrelevant things on the Web. ”
And such a dumb, incompetent fuss you write, though it concerns what the genial scientist Newton wrote.
But you nonetheless expect ‘correct answers’ ?
Try first to have some more respect for Newton, ClintR!
J.-P. D.
No answers, no credibility, JD.
Sorry.
I don’t know why so many people hope to soon see a strong La Nina ahead, but I think they might be disappointed:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
According to the prediction above, ENSO will very probably come back into neutral state by June 2021.
J.-P. D.
the history of NOAA’s predictions on what you are guessing at is essentially zero skill. May as well be flipping a coin.
hunter
As usual, you read and understand about 5% of what matters: that is due to the fact that, like Robertson and some others, you are only interesting in your own narrative.
I’m not at all interested in NOAA predictions (MEI excepted), let alone in your meaning about what I think.
J.-P. D.
Typo: ‘interesting’ -> ‘interested’
bill,
That’s not right. Scientific ENSO predictions FAR surpass coin-flips in terms of skill. In fact, even simple forecasting models like persistence and climatology are superior to coin-flips. And skill for more advanced statistical models is higher than that of simple models. And skill for the even more advanced dynamic models is higher than that of the statistical models. Forecasting skill for ENSO is reasonably good given the complexity. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying the skill is 100% perfect. It’s not and never will be. But it is the exact opposite of “essentially zero” because it is literally not zero.
I will say that I think this may be just another one of your off-the-cuff remarks that even you don’t actually believe. I hope so anyway.
bdgwx
Thanks for your help.
My impression is that people limke hunter have no idea about the competence of the Japanese Meteorology Agency.
J.-P. D.
I think part of it is that some people think that if a model cannot make predictions with 100% perfection then it must therefore have zero skill and is useless.
bdgwx, since you’re quilty of so many off-the-cuff remarks, maybe you could explain just this one sentence of yours:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2.”
b,
You are dreaming, or maybe living in a fantasy world.
You are confusing skill with luck. ENSO forecasters will boast about their successes, not so much about their failures. Just as compulsive losing gamblers, financial planners, economic forecasters, and all the other fortune sellers do.
You mention climatology as a simple forecasting model. What rubbish! Even the IPCC admits that it is impossible to forecast future climate states. Go back to sleep. Sweet dreams!
You guys are some piece of work. If its published you believe it.
LMAO!
At NOAA knows what the problem is. Here read it yourself.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/spring-predictability-barrier-we%E2%80%99d-rather-be-spring-break
Of course you probably won’t read it and will back here proclaiming spring predictions to be reliable.
Yes bill, we already know that ENSO forecasts aren’t perfect.
LOL! Indeed bdgwx. Its bad enough when even NOAA admits they probably should taking a spring break rather be working on forecasts.
Check out last Oct, Nov, and Dec forecasts here:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2019-October-quick-look/
and compare the results of AMJ, MJJ, JJA, JAS, and ASO here:
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Then if thats not enough continue on back another year Oct 18 through Apr 19 and look at the projections for the summer of 2019 with projections of a 2 year El Nino. And if thats not enough then just keep going back. Its the May forecasts that start getting back on track when you can start seeing some signs.
Just a month or two ago Bindidon was projecting imminent emergence of more red and what was the result? A consistent decline of red to a point there is now 5 months more lack of red in just the past 45 days. Nice job on your forecast Binny! And it isn’t even spring yet!
bill’s article had some remarks pertinent to Bindidon’s post that started this thread.
“Now let’s shift our attention to making an ENSO prediction for the coming winter season (for the November-January seasonal average). How useful are the models? Well, if you’re running a model using October data as input, then you’re in pretty good shape as you can expect close to 90% of the winter ENSO fluctuations to be predicted.”
Thanks bill, for helping us understand that ENSO models have 90% skill at this time of year for the coming months, about which, Bindidon was commenting.
barry says:
”bills article had some remarks pertinent to Bindidons post that started this thread.”
—————————-
Barry you need to actually read from the top. The prediction I was criticizing wasn’t this winter’s prediction which Bindidon didn’t make. It was this prediction:
”According to the prediction above, ENSO will very probably come back into neutral state by June 2021.”
NOAA’s success rate there is dismal. I have spoken many times about the spring predictability barrier. NOAA does a good job after ENSO events get underway. But ENSO events tend to form in the spring and decline in the late winter.
My mistake, Bill. Forecasts that far ahead do have little skill. I confused myself with when Winter is (Jun-Aug where I live). Not the first time I’ve done that, either.
My mistake too. I thought the claim was that the entire enterprise of ENSO forecasting had essentially zero skill. I see now bill was talking about extended range forecasts through the “spring barrier”. And yes I agree…those do have much lower skill.
bill…”the history of NOAAs predictions on what you are guessing at is essentially zero skill. May as well be flipping a coin”.
Even if we get a strong LN and temps drop below the baseline, NOAA will fudge the record to show more warming.
Another way to prove the object that only orbits and does not spin keep showing the same face in one direction and all faces to the center of orbit goes like this.
Hang a ball with a paint spot on a long string pretend it is a Moon if you want , now swing the ball into a circular motion (by grabbing the string above the ball so as not to put any spin on the ball)
the ball will now run in the circle orbiting the center and showing all faces to it while the spot constantly facing into one same direction.
That is orbiting without spinning.
This may be the simplest proof yet and so easy anybody can actually do it at home – and video it
Now watch the word salad the Eartflatters will construct to trying to dispute it
If you swing a ball on a string in a circle, the same face always points towards the center of the orbit.
Big difference between ‘hang’ (as in a pendulum) and ‘swing’ (as in a roundabout).
Idiot Eben is so confused, he confuses the issue. The ball hanging from the string is not the same as the ball being swung in a circle on a string. The “ball on a string” analogy refers to the plane of the orbit being parallel to the ground, which models orbital motion. The ball, orbit, and string are all in the same plane.
Idiots, either intentionally or accidentally, like to pervert reality.
Eben doesn’t know how to spin the ball!
That’s the thing with these idiots, they don’t even have a grasp of the basics. They just believe everything put out by NASA. They have no physics background, and they are unable to think for themselves. They hate reality.
He said hang on a long string. Like a pendulum. Which will perform exactly as he said.
“now swing the ball into a circular motion”
It is moving in a circle, the string is tracing out a cone.
If you swing a ball on a string in a circle, the same face always points towards the center of the orbit.
DREMPTY,
Nope, as Eben has demonstrated, it is possible for the object on the string to move in a circle, yet keep one face oriented towards a single point not at the center of the circle.
Eben scores a touchdown.
Try it with a tetherball, I know you can do it.
“it is possible for the object on the string to move in a circle, yet keep one face oriented towards a single point not at the center of the circle.”
There are many possible ways by which you can move objects in a circle, yet keep one face oriented towards a distant point. The question is, what makes them a good analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
We don’t do no stinkin analogies
OK, blob.
DREMPTY,
I have proved the ball on a string rotates on its axis.
I have proved the my little pony on the carousel rotates on its axis.
You want my proof that the chalk circle rotates on its axis as well?
ClintR and DREMPTY,
Oh by the way,
How does it feel to be beaten in a battle of wits by Eben?
ClintR, you called him an Idiot, and he pwned you.
All your bases belong to Eben.
Silly blob.
DREMPTY has no counter and admits utter defeat
“Silly blob.”
That’s all he gots.
You are just trolling, blob.
ClintR,
You mean you have to spin the ball to get it to keep the same face towards the center?
Ha!
Welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
Another one bites the dust.
Bob, you haven’t stated what is wrong with this:
“What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
It doesn’t take an indepth knowledge of physics to debunk that nonsense. I’m betting none of you idiots can figure it out. Prove me wrong, child.
ClintR,
As usual you are making demands you won’t understand the answer.
The Moon’s center of gravity and center of mass are not at the same point, making the above statement true.
What, you think that since the Moon doesn’t spin, that statement is false.
You need to take the plastic wrap off of that physics textbook.
bob sticks to the “tidal locking” nonsense.
It will be fun when I reveal how easily it can be debunked.
ClintR,
Really, you have been trying so hard, and you haven’t debunked anything.
Well you certainly have debunked the idea that you understand physics.
Thoroughly.
Correct bob, I haven’t debunked the “tidal locking” nonsense, yet.
Waiting, for a reason. The wait will be worth it.
Patience is a virtue.
And you never will ClintR.
You seem to be suffering from over estimating the intelligence of a bag of hammers disease.
Diagnosis certain, prognosis not very good.
I would recommend remedial study at a local community college or better yet enroll in kindergarten.
See? Just trolling.
Literally nothing is happening.
Or I should say that industrial society is gaining the power to control climate from space faster than climate can change.
ClintR says:
November 9, 2020 at 9:25 AM
Snape, you don’t have to use game shows for your nonsense. You can go directly to NASA. The Moon nonsense started with Cassini and his astrology. It has never been corrected, and is now promoted.
If you copy a mistake 100 times, how many mistakes do you have?
Reply
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
November 9, 2020 at 10:05 AM
Duly noted!
I need to give you a nick name too. I’ll think of a good one!
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
As promised I’ve come up with a good nick name for you ClintR; it is… wait for it…
…
..
.
Tonto! you like?
It describes the Noble Savage in his Natural Habitat; He speaks in incomplete sentences; occasionally performs a mysterious chant; at times one wonders, is Tonto crazy? Or does he possess a heightened, “natural” sense of this world? Above all he remains a faithful sidekick to the confused, few, non-spinners.
Of course the fact that this word is from the Spanish language, and translated means stupid, idiot, or fool did not enter into my selection process.
You call me Snape, but I think subconsciously you mean Snopes because of the way I debunk your myths.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Thank you for this enlightening prose. Much appreciated.
J.-P. D.
Welcome!
Snape, I see you have nothing of value to offer.
That’s why JD agrees with you….
Tonto!
You could also call me Kemosahbe if you like.
Careful of that Farside Indian dictionary!
I kept seeing this reference to a “paper” by a Dr. Madhavi that purportedly proves that the Moon does not rotate on its axis as it orbits the Earth, so I naturally had to check it out.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
It’s disappointing to find that it is nothing but a big Herring of the Red Variety. First of all it is not a paper, but a set of class notes. Second, while Dr. Madhavi is a very accomplished professor of Mechanical Engineering and is obviously well respected and extensively published, neither she nor her College have any expertise in Celestial Mechanics, Planetary Theory, or even Astronomy, and Im pretty sure they would object to their work being purported as such. She teaches at the Maturi Venkata Subba Rao Engineering College also known as MVSR Engineering College in Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana 501510, India; their website says that currently the college has B.E programs in Civil, CSE, ECE, EEE, IT, Mechanical and Automobile Engineering, PG programs in CSE, ECE and Mechanical besides MBA.
Shizzle.
No one paper or person “proves” that the moon does or does not rotate on its own axis. The Madhavi notes merely demonstrate, in Fig. 2(b), that an object which is rotating about an external axis, but not on its own axis, moves as per the moon (with one face always towards the center of the orbit). The particles of the object move in concentric circles about the external axis (point O as shown in the Fig.)
If you want papers that specifically discuss the moon’s rotation, you could try these, by Nikola Tesla:
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
I wouldnt use Tesla if I were you. Stick with the Madhavi Red Herring. Stronger reply below.
The class notes are great, and so is fig. 2b.
Points on the Moon do not move that way though.
They move as if it has an elliptical orbit plus a steady rotation:
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
Speaking only very generally and simply here, Svante. The moon’s particles do move in concentric circles, or ellipses more precisely, about the Earth/moon barycenter. The eccentricity of the moon’s orbit is nothing like as great as what you have shown in your gif…but even in your gif the particles are still moving in concentric ellipses.
“The Madhavi notes merely demonstrate, in Fig. 2(b), that an object which is rotating about an external axis, but not on its own axis, moves as per the moon..”
The moon has no connection to its orbital central axis as shown in Fig. 2(b) for a plate; DREMT’s moon ref. fails. Try again DREMT, add to your long list of failed analogies.
"The moon has no connection to its orbital central axis"
That’s right, there isn’t literally a rod connecting the moon to the Earth.
No, points on the Moon follow a wave like path during orbit.
Follow the point where the red line meets the surface.
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
We’re not discussing how much. Your model does not match observations.
What model?
Silly snowflake Svante, notice how the orbital path resembles a train track. If you weren’t an idiot, you would realize the significance of that.
But, you’re an idiot.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:”
“What model?”
Figure 2b. The ellipses are not concentric …
ClintR says:
“Silly snowflake Svante, notice how the orbital path resembles a train track.”
… notice how the distance between the tracks vary, they are closer when the blue/red axis is off center, and widest when they are not.
Your model is a train wreck.
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
Wrong again, silly Svante. The distance between the tracks is the diameter of Moon.
You may have to look up “diameter”, and then get an adult to explain it to you.
“The ellipses are not concentric”
What are they then? Parallel!?
They are not parallel because the distance between the green and red path varies.
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
Correction: the distance between paths traced out by points on the blue/red endpoints.
I was being sarcastic, Svante. Of course they are not parallel ellipses. You do know the difference between concentric circles and parallel circles?
Svante says:
The ancient greek idea of circular orbits has been abandoned.
Like your model it did not match observations.
Points on the blue/red endpoints track an ellipsis with a sine/cosine wave overlaid.
The distance between the tracks vary, so your simpleton model is a train wreck.
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
It’s your flawed graphic that is a train wreck, silly Svante.
I wasn’t suggesting the moon’s orbit is circular. You misunderstood, as usual.
"Concentric ellipses" is close enough, Svante. Obfuscate all you like, it changes nothing.
Trolls caught out again.
Explain libration of longitude, Svante, and explain exactly why you believe it proves axial rotation of the moon. No descriptions…explanations, please.
Svante is enamored with a gif he can’t understand!
He’s just a silly idiot trying to pervert reality to fit a poorly done computer graphic!
Svante,
Splendid animation.
Quite a good visual proof that libration is due to the Moon rotating on its axis while traveling in an elliptical orbit.
You choose to see what you want to see.
bobdroege says:
Yes, brilliant but not mine. MikeR posted it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544188
MikeR says:
I’d like to see DREMT’s simpleton model beat that accuracy.
"I’d like to see DREMT’s simpleton model…"
I’d like to see it too. I have no idea what you think my "model" even is, but you keep arguing that some mental construct you have of what you believe my argument is does not match observations. bob wrote:
"The orbital speed being in accordance with Kepler’s laws. It slows down approaching apogee and speed up approaching perigee, as it moves in an elliptical orbit."
I have no problem with this. So the moon in my mental model obeys Kepler’s laws.
"The [rate of change in orientation] being constant"
No problem with that. So the moon in my mental model is changing its orientation at a steady rate.
"So it [changes orientation] faster than the orbital speed bringing the leading edge into view, and then [changes orientation] slower than the orbital speed bringing the trailing edge into view."
All agreed. So the moon in my mental model matches observations.
Your simpleton model is a bolted down tree horse.
What gives your tree horse libration?
… wooden horse …
Incorrect, as explained.
Finally, DREMT says his model must match observations. ESPECIALLY that the Moon is spinning at a constant rate and orbiting at a non constant rate.
I assume he still claims the Moon is JUST ORBITING.
There is something gone awry there. What is the logical link between these two things!
#2
Incorrect, as explained.
“#N
Incorrect, as explained”
The argument by repetition of non logic, logical fail, #347
#3
Incorrect, as explained.
“Speaking only very generally and simply here, Svante.”
Translation: saying untrue things.
“The moons particles do move in concentric circles,”
Nope
“or ellipses more precisely”
Not circles. Not concentric. Not accurate. Can’t explain libration, axial tilt, etc.
Just wrong. Not predictive.
But the TEAM cares not a bit. Because they have belief.
Weird.
^^ This is one of the reasons why I no longer bother responding to Nate. Anybody who is that deeply in denial that they are ready to proclaim the moon’s particles don’t move in concentric ellipses isn’t worth bothering with. It is closer to circles than ellipses, for a start, since the moon’s orbit isn’t far off circular. It’s like they actually think libration of longitude is a physical movement of the moon instead of an apparent motion. ^^
Nate gets everything wrong in that comment, as usual.
That’s why Nate is so filled with hate. He never gets anything right, so he has to lash out, insult, and falsely accuse.
And all his efforts just make him a hateful idiot.
DREMPTY,
Nope, Libration is due to the physical movement of the Moon, it is not an apparent motion.
What you are saying is that the observed libration of the Moon is a mirage.
Nope, it’s not a French fighter jet.
It’s real and due to the rotation of the Moon.
OK blob, I’ll put the same question to you as I did to Svante. Explain libration of longitude, and explain exactly why you believe it proves axial rotation of the moon. No descriptions…explanations please.
DREMPTY,
You go first.
Admit that libration is real, not apparent.
OK, assuming you admit it’s real.
Longitudinal libration is explained by the difference between the orbital speed of the Moon versus the rotation speed of the Moon on its axis.
The orbital speed being in accordance with Kepler’s laws. It slows down approaching apogee and speed up approaching perigee, as it moves in an elliptical orbit.
The rotational speed being constant, one rotation every 27.3 days with respect to the distant stars. The Moon is turning with respect to the distant stars.
So it turns faster than the orbital speed bringing the leading edge into view, and then turns slower than the orbital speed bringing the trailing edge into view.
But we have been through all this.
Being as how the “Spinners” confuse an object changing orientation due to orbital motion, with axial rotation, this:
“The rotational speed being constant”
Can just be re-written:
“The rate of change in orientation being constant”
and you no longer have an argument that libration of longitude proves axial rotation.
It is just part of the way the moon moves in its orbit. End of story.
DREMPTY,
You are dreadfully confused.
You can not change orientation with out turning on your axis or rotating.
And you can’t change definitions to suit your cults beliefs.
So there you have it.
You are nothing but a deluded troll.
“You can not change orientation with out turning on your axis or rotating.”
Wrong. An object can change orientation if it is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
Wrong DREMT, as usual bob is right. An object cannot change orientation, only change its position, if it is rotating about an external axis (orbiting), unless the object is also rotating on its own axis like Earth’s moon, ball on string, chalk circle, bolted mgr horse, and toy train.
Incorrect, Ball4, and I am not interested in debating those who do not acknowledge what rotation about an external axis involves.
Readers already know DREMT is not interested in debating to gain accurate knowledge; DREMT now writes it explicitly. Thanks; DREMT’s link ref.s are great too:
“The Moon..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” but not the same face towards the sun.
You are a liar and a troll, Ball4.
DREMPTY,
My diagnosis is that you are suffering from delusions of understanding.
“Wrong. An object can change orientation if it is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.”
If it is rotating on an external axis it is still rotating on an internal axis as proved when I proved that a ball on a string is rotating on its own internal axis.
Take a ball on a string, rotating with string length x, all in the same plane, let the length of x go to zero, the ball is still spinning with the length of the string equal to zero.
You just don’t understand and make up definitions to support your case, such as pure rotation with no axial rotation, changing orientation with out rotation, etc.
All you are proving with the string shortening is that a rotation about an external axis involves a change in orientation of the object. You are proving my point, without even realising it.
Readers already know how to check my comment is truthful DREMT. bob is right, limit as string length tends to zero = rotating ball. There is no force to stop ball from rotating on its own axis when string length hits zero.
A ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis.
A rotating ball is a rotating ball.
Ball4 is a liar and a troll.
A rotating on its own internal axis ball on string is a revolving on an external axis ball on string. DREMT intentionally confuses or ignores internal rotational and external revolving axes in his comments to mislead readers.
Ball4 is a liar, a troll and a bore.
DREMPTY,
“All you are proving with the string shortening is that a rotation about an external axis involves a change in orientation of the object. You are proving my point, without even realising it.”
What a deceptive pile of dogs breakfasts.
All you are proving is that you lost the argument a long time ago when you admitted that the Moon, the ball on a string, your my little pony, and the chalk circle are all changing their orientation as they revolve.
So you now change the definition of a change in orientation to mean no change in orientation.
So to you, spinning is not spinning.
Changing means not changing.
With that logic, you can argue anything, all unsuccessfully of course.
blob, an object that is rotating about an external axis, but not on its own axis, changes its orientation whilst it rotates. As per Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
Remember how wrong you were about inertial reference frames? You are wrong again here.
A flat plate physically connected to external axis of revolution that is revolving about that external axis, and thus forced to be rotating on its own internal axis, changes its orientation whilst it rotates and its position as it revolves. As per Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
DREMT again seeks to confuse readers by intentionally miswording and leaving out details shown in Madhavi Fig. 2(b):
“the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.” as the plate revolves about O. One rotation on plate’s internal axis per rev. of the external axis through O.
You are going on the ignore list, troll.
“Deeply in denial that they are proclaiming that moons particles dont move in concentric ellipses isnt worth bothering with.”
The problem is you are not bothering with the facts, and still not making logical connections.
As explained by Bob, the very fact libration means the Moon particles are not moving in concentric curves.
‘delusions of understanding.’
Absolutely and very bizzare
Like his chalk circle he is physically unable to connect the facts logically to his model, so he just skips the logic.
#2
You are going on the ignore list, troll.
“The ignore list”
Lets see, we’ve got
Nate
Ball 4
.
.
Lunar N Pole
Lunar S Pole
Lunar axis
Axial tilt
Axial Precession
Lunar Pole stars
Eccentricity
Kinematics
Newton’s statements
Astronomy
…
Reality
#3
You are going on the ignore list, troll.
Let’s add to Dr Em T’s ignore list:
1. The number “1” (he confuses “1” with “0”. He thinks 1 rotation per orbit means no rotation)
2. The number “0” (since 1 rotation per orbit is not rotating, what the hell does “0” mean?)
3. The basic number line. (Since he believes an object that slows from 2 rotations about its own axis, to zero rotation about its own axis, actually stops rotating at 1 rotation about its own axis, and then miraculously starts rotating again.)
4. Translation (it’s a subset of kinematics, but he basically denies the concept of translation. He thinks translation is actually rotation because the reference frame is rotating)
5. Inertial reference frame. (he ignores it completely, switching reference frames to suit his delusions)
Let me edit #4 to read “curvilinear translation”.
Let me add:
1. Race horses (since racehorses per Dr Em T don’t rotate on their own axes, they have to run sideways in the curves and backwards on the backstretch)
I am sure I will think of more.
My ignore list consists of two commenters. I don’t ignore anything or anyone else. Your confusion over this numbering thing is hilarious. You are the only one of the “Spinners” who makes this mistake, who doesn’t understand our position to this extent. I am not the one who disputes the definition of curvilinear translation, I don’t ignore the inertial reference frame. You people just bash straw man after straw man.
The whole issue is so unbelievably simple. But when it leads you guys to conclude that every object on Earth is rotating on its own axis, you know it’s over for you.
You are just embarrassing yourselves now.
“My ignore list consists of two commenters. I don’t ignore anything or anyone else.”
Highly selective memory.
DREMT ” The moon does not really have any Poles”
DREMT “you mistake any change in orientation of the moon whilst it orbits, for axial rotation. The moon is just orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.”
Newton:
“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”
DREMT repeated “crickets”
“My ignore list consists of two commenters.”
Ball4
Nate
Weird that one of them keeps responding to me anyway.
No need to respond to me, though you do when you think you have a response.
But you DO NEED to respond to the facts.
Simply denying them is a no go.
Accepting them but not explaining them with your model is a no go.
Or just accept reality that you’ve lost.
I know that is difficult for some people.
#2
“My ignore list consists of two commenters.”
Ball4
Nate
Weird that one of them keeps responding to me anyway. In fact the other one has started responding to me too. So dishonest, that both of them take advantage of the fact that they know I am not responding!
ANd lets be perfectly clear. I dont respond just to you. I respond to BS from anyone.
You just happen to be one of the most prolific BS posters.
Dont like dealing with me?
Stop posting lies and BS.
#3
“My ignore list consists of two commenters.”
Ball4
Nate
Weird that they both keep responding to me anyway.
“So dishonest, that both of them take advantage of the fact that they know I am not responding!”
OMG what a snow flake!
Thinks if he posts BS, and doesnt respond to people who point out the BS, then thats just so unfair!
#4
“My ignore list consists of two commenters.”
Ball4
Nate
Weird that they both keep responding to me anyway.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 10, 2020 at 10:21 AM
“No one paper or person “proves” that the moon does or does not rotate on its own axis.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
I respectfully disagree. I can’t say this with certainty, but I suspect that there exists a treatise summarizing the state of the art in this particular area dating back 300 years or more, which is how long it’s been since this question was answered.
Others here have noted that Newton’s Principia devoted a large portion of Book III to codifying the answer.
In modern times the issue has been treated in relation to manned and unmanned space exploration and on improving the precision of the constants and variables involved in the calculations.
If you search for the right materials you’ll find tens of thousands of publications ranging from wiki pages to deep dives; two examples here:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/kathleen.howell.1/Publications/Masters/2018_Vutukuri.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2000JE001396
I’ll read through the entries you posted above and hope that they don’t disappoint.
It’s all just about a very simple perception shift, which requires only an open mind to grasp. 99% of the discussion you read here is pure obfuscation on the part of the "Spinners".
Perception has nothing to do with it. It’s just math and physics and a lot of observational evidence to back it up.
Wrong.
It’s about knowing what orbital motion is, Snape. If you idiots were able to face reality, you could learn that orbital motion means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit. There is no axial rotation involved in pure orbital motion.
But, you idiots can’t face reality. That’s why you hate the simple analogies of the wooden horse or ball on a string.
^^ Exactly ^^
In observed reality, there is any amount of axial rotation involved in pure orbital motion.
“Pure orbital motion” = “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“orbital motion means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit.”
DREMT and ClintR exhibit continuously different defn.s. The cultists make up defn.s to suit their mood of the moment.
It has been the same defn. since the beginning of the whole argmt.
I just showed two different defn.s since the beginning of this whole subthread. You two can’t keep your failed defn.s the same because you just make them up as you go.
No you didn’t.
“orbital motion means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit”
This is a complete fabrication. No definition of pure orbital from any reputable source includes where the object faces.
You are welcome to provide a reputable source defining orbital motion thus. However, you won’t be able to, because that statement of yours is pure BS.
Cite please? Reputable source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549526
barry, didn’t you see the clear example of the wooden horse on a MGR? Didn’t you notice the motion–orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis.
That’s the reality that you idiots keep trying to deny.
Not one of you idiots has been able to understand physics, so no need to go into depth.
Quote from DREM Team’s 7:53pm link: “The Moon..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.”
A confirming link that the moon rotates on its own axis once per rev.
An actual quote from the article I linked to:
“There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.“
DREM Team can now apply their 7:53pm link of new found astronomical knowledge to ClintR’s earthbound mgr wooden horse:
“The wooden horse..rotates about its axis in the same time it takes to orbit mgr center. This results in it always keeping the same face turned towards mgr center.”
This is the article I linked to:
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 axes (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.”
All consistent with quote from DREM Team’s 8:55pm link: “The Moon..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.”
A confirming link that the moon rotates on its own axis once per rev. Which can also be applied to ClintR’s earthbound mgr wooden horse, ball on string, toy train, so forth.
See barry? Ball4 is what I was referring to. Everything he see is rotating about its axis. He has not interest in reality.
Do you?
…and as we saw from the Madhavi text, Fig. 2(b), a rotation about an external point is motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards that point throughout the orbit.
Yes, Madhavi Fig. 2(b) for a plate physically connected to the axis of rotation is consistent with quote from DREM Team’s 8:55pm link confirming: “The Moon..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.”
An excellent confirming link from DREMT that the moon rotates on its own axis once per rev.
Not sure why Ball4 keeps quoting something that is not written in the article I linked to. I think he might be trolling…
Not sure? The article contains further links to substantiate what it says about the moon DREMT. A good article link from DREMT to teach DREMT and many other more competent readers:
“The Moon..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.”
The article I linked to does not contain the words you keep quoting.
Ball4 is kind of a “super” idiot. Like Norman, he will agree with any of the nonsense, no matter how ridiculous it is.
He’ll even agree that two ice cubes can make something hotter than one ice cube. He goes to nonsense like a fly goes to bull excretement.
I know DREMT usually needs help in understanding these wiki page references. Search the article on moon, 1hit. Click on the link for that paragraph main article. Search that main article for moon, many hits, click on one linked to moon, find:
“The Moon..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.”
No ClintR 9:37pm, I don’t agree, you write nonsense for what you think others think, those are your failed words not theirs. Gordon uses the same failed tactic.
The article I linked to does not even mention the moon.
Okay Ball4, I’ll put it to you directly: Can two ice cubes make something hotter than one ice cube?”
a) Yes
b) No
What is your answer?
(And we know you can find nonsense on wiki claiming Moon is rotating on its axis. That’s the nonsense we’re debunking. So, a wiki text means nothing. You need some physics. And the physics debunks wiki, and NASA. Sorry.)
DREMTS definition of orbit fails to mention ORBIT:
“I use the word ‘orbit’ because ‘orbit’ is another word for a rotation about an external axis.”
Because ORBIT means what I SAY it means, I can replace it in the Definition of something else, and then we obtain a definition for ORBIT.
Ingenious!
So, barry, all of Ball4’s nonsense aside, hopefully you can see that firstly an object rotating about an external axis, without rotating on its own axis, moves with one face always oriented towards the center of the orbit. You can get that from Madhavi. Secondly, an orbit is just another word for a rotation about an external axis. You can get that from the Wikipedia entry I linked to, or, for example:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
ORBIT definition search: The first Few results.
Notice ALL the definitions describe it as a Path or a Trajectory thru space. A Trajectory is separately defined to be a “path of a projectile, moving under the influence of gravity”
Notice, NONE of these definitions say a whit about the objects orientation while orbiting
That is pure invention by the CULT.
So the vote is in. Whadda you gonna do? Sue Google?
”
orbit
/ˈrbət/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Science
Physics
Biology
noun
1.
the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.”
“Orbit
In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.”
“orbit noun (2)
Definition of orbit (Entry 2 of 3)
1a: a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus)
also : one complete revolution of a body describing such a path
b: a circular path”
”
trajectory
/trəˈjekt(ə)rē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the path followed by a projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces.
“the missile’s trajectory was preset”
“What Is an Orbit?
orbit-1.jpg
The International Space Station orbits Earth once every 90 minutes.
orbit-3.jpg
The point at which a planet is closest to the sun is called perihelion. The farthest point is called aphelion.
Credits: NOAA
orbit-2.jpg
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter orbits the moon, which orbits Earth, which orbits the sun.
This article is part of the NASA Knows! (Grades 5-8) series.
An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.”
Here is another one:
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
“And we know you can find nonsense on wiki claiming Moon is rotating on its axis.”
I didn’t find it, DREMT found it and linked to it. I just added an ice cube to my glass of ice water; temperature before by thermometer 32F and temperature after adding ice cube 32F.
DREMT’s article does mention moon by inspection & searching. You guys are so easy to debunk.
You saw the comment, Ball4, but you didn’t answer the simple question:
Can two ice cubes make something hotter than one ice cube?”
a) Yes
b) No
What is your answer?
The article I linked to mentioned “moons”, it did not mention our moon specifically. The article you kept quoting was a completely different article on Wikipedia. It’s like you’re saying, because I linked to one article on Wikipedia that means I agree with the details of every other article on Wikipedia! Obviously you will find articles on Wikipedia saying that the moon rotates on its own axis, since that is the prevailing (yet erroneous) opinion on the subject.
Nate looked up several definitions of “orbit” to then conclude: “NONE of these definitions say a whit about the objects orientation while orbiting”
That’s because the object’s orientation is determined by the physics, as developed by Newton. It’s the same physics as a ball on a string. The same side always faces the center of orbit, in pure orbital motion.
Now Nate will likely look up several different definitions of “string”.
He’s soooooo desperate….
ClintR 7:17am changes the question. Ok.
After I added an ice cube to my glass of ice water, temperature before by thermometer 32F and temperature after adding ice cube 32F, I just added another ice cube (for two added ice cubes) to my glass of ice water; temperature before by thermometer 32F and temperature after adding 2nd ice cube 32F.
DREMT concedes 7:18am that his linked article does contain what I pointed out, thx.
It contained the word “moons”. That was it.
No, I didn’t change the question, Ball4. Stop with the distractions.
You have to choose one of the two answers. Failure to answer correctly, or failure to answer at all identifies you as an idiot, again.
Third and final time:
Can two ice cubes make something hotter than one ice cube?”
a) Yes
b) No
What is your answer?
ClintR didn’t like my answer with one ice cube, ClintR needed a change to two ice cubes.
“Can two ice cubes make something hotter than one ice cube?”
Again, second time: After I added an ice cube to my glass of ice water, temperature before by thermometer 32F and temperature after adding ice cube 32F, I just added another ice cube (for two added ice cubes) to my glass of ice water; temperature before by thermometer 32F and temperature after adding 2nd ice cube 32F.
ClintR didn’t understand the first time that the something is experimentally found NOT hotter (the something remains constant at 32F) with two ice cubes added over one ice cube added. Try to understand that ClintR for a third and final time.
And there you have it folks.
Ball4 can’t answer the simple question. He can’t answer because he can’t face reality. None of the idiots can face reality. That’s why they’re idiots.
They can wear out keyboards. They can twist, spin, distort, confuse, insult and accuse. But they can’t face reality.
No one provided a reputable source that verified this strange notion:
“orbital motion means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit”
There was a wikipedia entry on rotation offered (wikipedia is a reputable source?). The part on orbit made zero mention of the object’s orientation, and the entry references the Earth/Sun relationship as an example. In which the Earth does not keep the same face to the sun as it orbits.
So that attempt bombed spectacularly.
I hope to see more attempts at providing a reputable source for the assertion in quotes above.
But the moronic shoe-horning in of old arguments instead of just providing a source is also entertaining.
Oh wait, there was another ‘reputable’ source provided. This one:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
And it has a definition of orbit.
“Orbit is the motion of one object around another. Earth orbits the Sun.”
This source also contradicts the notion that orbital motion means the orbiting object keeps the same face towards the centre of orbit.
So I searched that reoutable source regarding the perennial topic. Guess what?
https://www.thoughtco.com/all-about-the-moon-3073237
“The Most people are under the mistaken impression that the Moon doesnt rotate at all. It actually does rotate, but at the same rate it orbits our planet. That causes us to always see the same side of the Moon facing Earth. If it didnt at least rotate once, we would see every side of the Moon.”
Keep these reputable sources – and the entertainment – coming!
OK, barry. I understand that your mind is completely closed, but let us try something.
1) Do you understand that as per Madhavi Fig. 2(b), an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis, keeps the same face always oriented towards the center of the orbit?
2) Do you acknowledge that references have been provided which state that an orbit, or revolution, is simply another word for a rotation about an external axis?
barry, you can’t even understand the clear example of the wooden horse on a MGR!
That’s the reality that you idiots keep trying to deny. You can’t understand the basic physics, and your denial of reality means you have no interest in science. Science is about dealing with reality. Nonsense is about distorting, perverting, and denying reality.
Both sources use the Earth orbiting the sun as an example of orbital motion.
“orbital motion means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit”
The logic of the daft statement requires that the Earth cannot be in orbital motion around the Sun – because the Earth does NOT keep the same face to the Sun.
And the 2nd of the two reputable sources provided by DREMT states that the Moon is rotating as it orbits the Earth. It’s even the same author.
The regulars continue to provide plenty of chortles. I look forward to more twisting and backpedalling. And hopefully some more reputable sources.
barry gets himself confused, and blames his confusion on others.
Try replacing this:
“orbital motion means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit”
With this:
“orbital motion without axial rotation means an orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit”
Then please answer my 1) and 2) directly.
Yep, the original sentence was bonkers. The new version is no better.
And still the ‘reputable source’ DREMT provided confirms:
“Most people are under the mistaken impression that the Moon doesnt rotate at all. It actually does rotate, but at the same rate it orbits our planet.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/all-about-the-moon-3073237
1) Yes
2) No
“In some systems, there are multiple axes of rotation. One classic astronomy example is the Earth-Sun system. Both the Sun and the Earth rotate individually, but the Earth also revolves, or more specifically orbits, around the Sun….
Both terms have specific uses and meanings in science and mathematics.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
Gotta love these reputable sources.
That’s right, barry, the Earth is both rotating about an external axis and it is rotating on its own axis. The moon is just rotating about an external axis.
And a bit more from the very same source:
“Sometimes people will say that Earth revolves around the Sun. Orbit is more precise and is the motion that can be calculated using the masses, gravity, and the distance between the orbiting bodies.
Sometimes we hear someone refer to the time it takes for a planet to make one orbit around the Sun as “one revolution”. That’s rather more old-fashioned, but it’s perfectly legitimate. The word “revolution” comes from the word “revolve” and so it makes sense to use the term, although it’s not strictly a scientific definition.
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.
Fast Facts
Rotation usually refers to something rotating on its axis.
Revolution usually refers to something orbiting something else (like Earth around the Sun).
Both terms have specific uses and meanings in science and mathematics.”
Yes, barry, I agree with all that. None of that contradicts the more specific definitions, that I quoted, which notes that revolution means a rotation about an external axis, or point.
With God like powers take one spherical planetoid about the size of the moon and spin it on its axis so that it rotates once every 28 days relative to the fixed stars.
Once it is established that the spin is constant, now place the planetoid in a 28-day orbit around an Earth-sized planet, and its rotation prograde to its orbit. We see that the planetoid always keeps the same face to the planet.
The rotational speed has not altered one bit, its (rotational) angular momentum is preserved. And yet some try to argue that the rotational speed is now zero. Is rotational speed zero relative to the fixed stars? Nope, rotational speed is only zero with respect to the planet it is orbiting. The angular momentum hasn’t changed, only the viewpoint.
OF COURSE this is about frames of reference. The rest is guff, like people trying to redefine words.
barry is off in his own world, now, not really listening to anyone.
Definition of ‘revolution’ – and the fact it is an archaic and not very scientific term:
“Sometimes we hear someone refer to the time it takes for a planet to make one orbit around the Sun as “one revolution”. That’s rather more old-fashioned, but it’s perfectly legitimate. The word revolution comes from the word revolve and so it makes sense to use the term, although its not strictly a scientific definition.”
Revoluition = orbit
What the planets do around the Sun.
Revolution does not mean keeping the same face to the Sun. No planet does that relative to the Sun.
Gotta love these reputable sources.
“Revolution does not mean keeping the same face to the Sun. No planet does that relative to the Sun”
That’s because the planets are also rotating on their own axes, as well as revolving.
That’s swell.
Figure 2(b) is labeled “rotation”, and this is around an external axis. So it works for the ball-on-a-string view of the Moon.
And as the reputable source you provided that I’ve been quoting helpfuly points out,
“…Since astronomy often deals with multiple objects in motion, things can get complex. In some systems, there are multiple axes of rotation. One classic astronomy example is the Earth-Sun system. Both the Sun and the Earth rotate individually, but the Earth also revolves, or more specifically orbits, around the Sun.”
So you can have rotation both internally and externally for the same object. Like the Earth relative to the sun.
Nothing about that speaks against the moon rotating on both axes. Which it does. As your reputable source says:
“Most people are under the mistaken impression that the Moon doesn’t rotate at all. It actually does rotate, but at the same rate it orbits our planet. That causes us to always see the same side of the Moon facing Earth. If it didn’t at least rotate once, we would see every side of the Moon.”
I should have thanked you for providing this reputable source. I’ll make amends now. Thank you!
Figure 2(b) shows an object rotating about an external axis without rotating on its own axis. It moves as per the moon, in that the same face of the object is oriented towards the center throughout.
As your source explains – are you scrolling past your own source’s text? – an object can have two rotational axes, an internal one and an external one – the latter of which is properly called an orbit in celestial mechanics.
You keep ignoring the fact that your own source tells us the moon is rotating while it orbits. Or have you joined the reality-based side of the argument in my asence?
Yes, an object can be rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis. Just like the Earth does. The moon, however, is rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating on its own axis. Just like the plate in Fig. 2(b).
Again, from the same website you have referred us to:
“The Moon orbits in such a way that one rotation takes just about the same length of time as it takes for it to orbit around Earth. That is, the Moon spins on its own axis once during its orbit around our planet. That leaves one side is facing us during its orbit. The technical name for this spin-orbit lock is “tidal locking.” ”
https://www.thoughtco.com/dark-side-of-the-moon-3072606
This is a reputable source, right?
“You keep ignoring the fact that your own source tells us the moon is rotating while it orbits”
It’s simple, barry. I do not agree with him on that. In fact I think he is contradicting his own definition of orbit. But this isn’t surprising when there has been hundreds of years of people being told over and over again that the moon rotates on its own axis.
This is why the moon issue is so valuable. We get to see idiots throw themselves off the cliff trying to support their cult beliefs.
barry, you might want to at least try taking some hang-gliding gear with you….
So, do I go with PhDs in celestial mechanics, or with anonymous cranks that seem permanently incacerated on a blog who say all the experts are wrong and they are right?
Decisions decisions.
No barry, the choice is…do you go with the definitions, or their pronouncements that the moon rotates on its own axis?
I appreciate that physics is over your head, barry. That’s why we try to make things simple enough most high school kids could understand. The wooden horse on a merry-go-round is simple to understand. It is not rotating about its axis. But, you wouldn’t believe the idiots that claim it is.
Is the wooden horse rotating about its axis? Take all the time you need.
“Cult beliefs”
Mindless rhetoric is mindless.
Cult-like views are unorthodox. That the moon rotates is mainstream science.
So you’re better off sniping the “orthodoxy.” It’s a favourite term of AGW ‘skeptics’. Better yet, stop driving an automatic mind and switch to manual.
barry, the moon nonsense started centuries ago, most likely in astrology. The first documentation was from Cassini. He presented “laws” that are not laws. They became widely accepted because it wasn’t considered important to challenge them, since they had no bearing on anything. How can something that is not happening have an effect on anything.
But later it became important to defend the “laws”, as no one could figure out how Moon got there. And worse, how did it get there with no axial rotation? So now it was important to support the “laws”, and even build more nonsense to include the “tidal locking” hilarity.
You don’t know enough physics to reject “tidal locking”, just like you don’t know enough physics to reject AGW. You just cling to the nonsense believing it must be right, even though it conflicts with reality. You prefer your “PhDs” over reality.
That makes you an idiot.
snape…”while Dr. Madhavi is a very accomplished professor of Mechanical Engineering and is obviously well respected and extensively published, neither she nor her College have any expertise in Celestial Mechanics, Planetary Theory, or even Astronomy…”
Astronomers and astrophysicists don’t require the strong mathematical background of an engineer. If you study at an undergrad level in science, you might specialize in courses aimed at astronomy but you are not required to take heavy math courses.
Not so in engineering like mechanical, civil, electrical, chemical, and metallurgical. Maybe in agricultural engineering or geological engineering you might catch a break.
In engineering you not only study honours level integral calculus of 3 variables and differential equation theory in one course, you have another course in which you study linear algebra and vector calculus. That’s first year. In second year you have to study more advanced math in probability and statistics and complex number theory for electrical engineering.
I took a year of astrophysics and we barely touched math. I’d say a mechanical engineer is much more qualified on the kinematics of orbiting bodies than an astronomer. Once you get out of orbital theory in astronomy what the heck else is there wrt math? Calculating the brightness level of a star? Or throwing around some parsecs?
“I took a year of astrophysics and we barely touched math.”
That’s not a rousing endorsement of the course. What you took is called Introduction to Astronomy.
Nate, the reason you’re so desperate and grasping at straws like that, is because you have NOTHING. Your cult is a false religion. Your cult beliefs are destroyed by reality.
You flail and flop as you fail.
Nate says:
I took a year of astrophysics and we barely touched math.
Thats not a rousing endorsement of the course. What you took is called Introduction to Astronomy.
—————————————–
Yet the kinematics guy can find a textbook and the local astrophysicists can’t find one that explains spinning objects in space. Pretty sad I would say.
Bill,
That’s an uninformed drive by.
factual
Bill,
It was Gordon who said he took a year of Astrophysics.
Does that change your opinion.
No I was just noticing it was Nate claiming knowledge of astrophysics and Gordon claiming knowledge of kinematics. Maybe the problem is the folks that skipped out on the kinematics.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 10, 2020 at 8:34 PM
“Astronomers and astrophysicists don’t require the strong mathematical background of an engineer. If you study at an undergrad level in science, you might specialize in courses aimed at astronomy but you are not required to take heavy math courses. ”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. FYI… you could have done a simple search before posting such a ridiculous comment, but instead you chose to lie again.
Here is a recent curriculum from a mid-tier university.
https://www.astro.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Astro%20Undergrad%20Handbook%2C%20vF2019.pdf
You also say:
“I took a year of astrophysics and we barely touched math.”
No, Coursera does not count!
Shizzle!
P.s.: I’ll get back on this topic later because you say some other things that are truly laughable and show that you are clueless.
P.s.s.: Happy Veterans Day to all the Vets and Happy belated Birthday to all Devil Dogs out there.
snape…I don’t need to research it, you’re the idiot rushing off to the MIT syllabus which is like going to another planet. Their requirements are so high at MIT that many of the required courses at other universities have been covered as a prerequisite for entry.
And why would you need to look it up unless you are some clown who has never attended university?
I went into the astronomy course expecting great stuff, like you see in sci-fi movies. What I found was an easy course with virtually no math. I mean, where would you need advanced math in astronomy? The fact you don’t get that shows me you don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground.
You certainly need advanced math in mechanical engineering. Vector analysis alone is required to do the kinematics. What kinematics are required in watching the universe mainly with a radio-telescope since optical telescopes are generally useless beyond Jupiter for collecting data.
Most of the analysis in astronomy is about analyzing the gases in stars.
MIT? I did say mid-tier.
I needed to look it up because I did not major in Astronomy or Astrophysics, and unlike you, I don’t cheat, I don’t lie and I don’t tolerate those who do.
You are so clueless that you don’t even know UMass from MIT!
The only thing UMass ranks higher than MIT in is Basketball you nitwit.
Gordon,
your question
“Once you get out of orbital theory in astronomy what the heck else is there wrt math?”
ask Einstein, this is what he said.
“Do not worry too much about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you that mine are still greater.”
Well, but first you have to get your orbital theory down, step one is to realize that the Moon rotates on its axis.
bobd…”ask Einstein, this is what he said.
Do not worry too much about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you that mine are still greater.”
It’s well known that Einstein called on others to do the complex math. Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock went one further by claiming Einstein did not understand measurement.
Until I read that I failed to grasp that Einstein’s forte was thought experiments. He did not work in labs, he did no experiments, he simply thought a lot about things and left it to others to do the experiments.
With his theory of relativity, he relied solely on kinematics without considering the forces and masses that underlie kinematics. As a result, he allowed himself to get caught up in the notion that time is as real as a force or a mass. It’s not, time has no existence, being defined by humans based on the periodicity of the Earth’s rotation. Therefore, time is a constant as Newton claimed.
I wonder what he was thinking when he introduced a multiplier for time based on the ratio of a velocity to the speed of light. That not only allows time to change with velocity, it allows physical distances to change as well. That’s why Essen claimed he did not understand measurement.
We know in engineering that accelerations are the product of a force acting on a mass. Einstein has turned that around so that forces and masses are dependent on accelerations, the measurement of which are based on the human invention of time, a constant.
His relativity theory is likely along the lines of what Feynman said about quantum theory, ‘it works but no one knows why’. I have heard that Einstein’s relativity works at the atomic level but I know for a fact there is no such thing as time dilation. I think they need to go back for another look to see how forces and masses interact to produce the illusion of time dilation.
The Serbian face of the Moon
Last year I searched for technical documents and papers around that published by the Serbian Aleksandar S. Tomic (I spare us this time the wonderful Serbian accents and cedillas):
THE LUNAR ORBIT PARADOX
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
It was easy to find some published by his mentors Veljko Vujicic and Pavle Savic.
*
1. Vujicic
Most of him is written in Serbian, and was never translated nor published anywhere outside of Serbia.
His main publication in English was
MODIFICATION OF EARTH’S GRAVITY SPHERE, Belgrade 2012
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=1450-55841301121V
with the very interesting
Abstract. The standard radius of the Earth’s gravity sphere is 917.000 km. Here we present that the radius is 1.400.000 km
Yeah. No one on Earth seems to have taken notice of that paper.
But… this paper’s results were used by… Tomic in his Lunar Paradox paper:
” This form of Vujicic equation is fully adequate and realy present generalization of Newton’s formula… ”
And that without any real proof, even not by any ‘open’ peer review.
*
2. Savic
Savic’s period was before that of Vujicic and Tomic.
He wrote a short but interesting paper correlating, like did others very early too, rotation and magnetism for celestial bodies:
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ROTATION OF CELESTIAL BODIES
http://elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/pda/6/broj6_clanak1.pdf
” Correlation of microstructure and macrophenomena (mass as a source of pressure, disturbance of electron shell, stratification of large masses independently of chemical composition, creation of magnetic field and origin of rotation) is discussed. ”
*
Sounds very good. But my focus in this paper is the following, surprising paragraph I had overlooked last year:
” Because it has not its own magnetic field, it is understandable why the Moon has not its own rotation (by which I understand a period different from the revolution period). ”
Aha.
Now I understand how such people work: they simply cut off, with a simple, anonymous statement, everything that has been observed, analyzed and theorized centuries ago.
Great. That way, you avoid any need for further investigations.
J.-P. D.
Can’t help but notice you’re still very much "polluting the thread" after saying you were going to stop quite some time ago.
DREMT
You thoroughly distort the situation: I decided to restart posting against pollution by others, especially… Robertson, Flynnson and ClintR.
They are the REAL polluters here.
J.-P. D.
IOW, JD can’t do what he says he will do. Norman has the same problem. It’s called “keyboard addition”.
JD*Huffman
In English you rather should write:
Its called keyboard addiction.
Thanks JD. I tend to make typos when I’m laughing too much.
You’re correct, you and Norman have a “keyboard addiction”.
Once again, we see idiot Bindidon avoiding reality. Lacking a knowledge of physics, he finds things on the Internet that he can twist and distort to match his false beliefs. Anything to soothe his keybaord addition.
The wooden horse is smarter than Bindidon.
binny…”Because it has not its own magnetic field, it is understandable why the Moon has not its own rotation (by which I understand a period different from the revolution period). ”
Good grief, the guy is saying the Moon does not rotate independently of its revolution around the Earth.
Nope,
He is saying the Moon rotates around its axis at the same rate it revolves around the earth.
Quote taken out of context, or they left part of the quote out.
Same old crap
No, he is saying that he understands what other people refer to as a rotation on its own axis at the same rate the Moon revolves around the Earth to be a lack of rotation on its own axis. That becomes the more likely interpretation when you understand he was also the guy Tomic quoted as saying “This is why the Moon has neither a magnetic moment nor a rotation of its own” in another paper.
bobdroege
Robertson never reads anything till end.
You can show him e.g. a chart with a lot of yearly sea ice plots, from ‘mean of 1981-2010’ over lots of others till ‘2020’, and he replies ‘You show only old data’.
*
Now back to more serious matter: Pavle Savic was a good astronomer and an intelligent scientist.
He certainly knew of the work of his contemporary Russian colleague Habibullin for whom there was no doubt about Moon’s spin.
Habibullin was, together with the Polish astronomer Koziel, one of the very first analysts of the ‘Lunar Physical Libration’, a tiny irregularity in Moon’s spin predicted by Lagrange, that hardly anyone who denies this spin would ever be able to discover.
To exclude, for celestial bodies, a spin synchronous to their orbit was for the Serbian Pavle Savic, living in a country venerating Tesla, an elegant balancing act between own conviction and official discourse.
There were, after Savic, many scientists who established a link between magnetism and gravity.
One of them is the Sudanese professor for Experimental Physics Arbab I. Arbab, who published some years ago interesting spin-orbit coupling equations based on what is termed today ‘gravitomagnetism’.
J.-P. D.
binny…I offered one simple experiment to emulate the Earth-Moon interaction which proves all your scientists wrong. Use two coins, keeping one stationary as the Earth and the other orbiting it as the Moon.
Put a mark on the orbiting coin, keeping it always pointed to the centre of the stationary coin. Now, let’s see you rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees around its own centre while keep the mark always pointed to the centre of the stationary coin.
Can’t you understand that if the mark is always pointed to the centre of the stationary coin it is impossible for it to also rotate around its centre?
If you put a mark opposite the other mark the two will move parallel to each other at all times. All your references from your esteemed scientists claiming otherwise are wrong.
Hint: to emulate the Moon with a linear velocity vector and the effect of gravity bending that vector into an orbital path, you must slide the moving coin around the perimeter of the stationary coin while adjusting it as gravity would adjust it.
If you roll the movable coin, as required for rotation about its centre, the mark can no longer point at the stationary coin’s centre.
Oh nooo…
” … I offered one simple experiment to emulate the Earth-Moon interaction which proves all your scientists wrong. ”
*
Imagine! Robertson beating the entire engineering and science world having ever worked about Moon since 500 years, though he not only
– never has given any proof of any engineering, let alone scientific education,
but also
– is simply unable to understand how clueless his primitive thoughts are, compared with what many dozens of scientists elaborated since centuries.
*
Robertson really seems to increasingly suffer of a hard mental disease, exactly like did ten years ago Kurt, my lady Rose’s uncle.
Like Robertson, he all the time came along with the same contrarian nonsense. Everybody got more and more wrong.
Last year in December, Kurt definitely stopped remembering who we are. I hope, Robertson will understand it’s time for him to visit a neurologist before it gets too late to do.
J.-P. D.
“Put a mark on the orbiting coin, keeping it always pointed to the centre of the stationary coin. Now, let’s see you rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees around its own centre while keep the mark always pointed to the centre of the stationary coin.”
Gordon. That is very easy to do. The coins are separated by a small gap (they don’t contact each other, otherwise that does not mimic the moons rotation around earth at all) As you move the coin in a circular orbit around the stationary coin, you simply rotate the moving coin between your fingers to keep the mark pointing to the stationary coin. You have to rotate it one time on its own axis per orbit.
bobdroege
Should you be interested about Habibullin’s and other people’s work at Kazan University, so please read:
History of development of selenodesy and dynamics of the Moon in Kazan
Rizvanov N.G. and Rakhimov L.I.
Engelhardt Astronomical Observatory, Kazan, Russia
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
This paper shows among many other topics how much it matters to observe celestial bodies wrt the fixed stars, what has been understood centuries ago by… Sir Isaac Newton.
It is moreover, in some sense, millions of ‘scientific miles’ away from Tesla’s superficial quick shot based on zero observation, let alone on any really consistent theoretical work.
J.-P. D.
The quote was originally from Savic. “binny” (JD Bindidon) found the quote, but misinterpreted it. Gordon corrected “binny”. Then bobdroege saw Gordon’s comment and claimed it meant Moon was rotating about its axis!
Same old crap.
Here’s the original quote: “Because it has not its own magnetic field, it is understandable why the Moon has not its own rotation (by which I understand a period different from the revolution period).”
Savic is stating that Moon does NOT rotate about its axis. “binny” and bob got it wrong. Gordon and DREMT got it right.
As usual.
Nope,
He is saying the rotation period is the same as the revolution period.
You don’t seem to have a grasp of the English language.
Like I said, “…and bob got it wrong”.
bobd…”the Moon ***has not*** its own rotation (by which I understand a period different from the revolution period).
He’s saying the Moon has no rotational period, only a revolution period.
Remember the author is speaking Serbian and Binny is translating.
No, he is saying that he understands what other people refer to as a rotation on its own axis at the same rate the Moon revolves around the Earth to be a lack of rotation on its own axis. That becomes the more likely interpretation when you understand he was also the guy Tomic quoted as saying “This is why the Moon has neither a magnetic moment nor a rotation of its own” in another paper.
Oh la la! Une visite du génie Robertson, quel plaisir!
” Remember the author is speaking Serbian and Binny is translating. ”
*
Robertson shows one more time that he doesn’t read anything because he is only able to out his brainless, personal nonsense.
If he had accessed the article below the link, as does everybody equipped with a normal brain, he then would have ‘discovered’ that Pavle Savic’s article was written in… English.
J.-P. D.
ClintR
Like Robertson, you intentionally omitted my emphasis:
“… (by which I understand a period different from the revolution period). ”
It is obvious here that Pavle Savic is perfectly aware of the existence of what he deliberately excludes.
*
Think what you want, ClintR. You are, like Robertson and hunter, a denialist.
The comment was dedicated to bobdroege, and not to those who never accept what differs from their personal narrative.
I will certainly not be surprised if all three of you also discredit, denigrate and distort Habibullin’s work and, in addition, all work performed at Kazan University and its observatories since far over 100 years.
*
It is easy to imagine your reaction when reading e.g.
” 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 of theMoon" [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. ”
And a few paragraphs below:
” 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. ”
*
I look forward with great pleasure to Robertson’s saying:
” Habibullin naturally means the axis of rotation that runs through the center of the Earth! ”
Ha ha haaah… And sorry: it’s not from NASA.
J.-P. D.
JD, you have a keyboard addiction, and your keyboard is affected by logorrhea.
I think the only cure is to burn your keyboard….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/11/09/trump-removes-climate-program-director/
Sounds much more amazing, from the WP too
BREAKING: White House tells federal agencies to proceed with plans for Trump’s February budget in latest sign of defiance
J.-P. D.
Trump continues to be a source of entertainment. In a funk he is sacking people he doesn’t like, and Giuliani is making announcements from parking lots.
I will miss the high comic drama, but not the toxic, lying sleazebag.
barry…”I will miss the high comic drama, but not the toxic, lying sleazebag”.
I would not put it past Trump to expose the Democrats and their ballot-box stuffing. He is not going away quietly.
I laughed so hard when he beat Hillary that I nearly fell off my seat. If he pulls it off again and has Sleazy Joe’s lead overturned, I will fall out of my seat laughing.
The latest forecast from cfsv2 has the NINO3.4 index reaching at least -2 by January.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/nino34Mon.gif
That would be the lowest in 50 years. However, the daily global temperatures continue to rise. November is off to a warm start.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Gregory J
Thank you for the CFSv2 link, I never bookmarked it. Done this time.
It will be interesting to see who of all these forecasters gets nearest to reality.
The Australian BoM’s forecast:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
(The Indian Ocean Dipole is of interest as well.)
The Japanese Met Agency’s forecast:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
*
” That would be the lowest in 50 years. ”
Yes. But what does matter most:
– how high resp. low the peaks/drops are?
or
– how long did the ENSO phase around them last?
When I look at MEI data for previous La Nina editions
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
I ask how the current la Nina could manage to beat those having lasted
– from Jun/Jul 1998 till May/Jun 2001
or
– from May/Jun 2010 till Feb/Mar 2012.
Wait and see… according to what Roy Spencer told us many times about ENSO/LT lags, the temperature anomaly drop would be expected by Feb/Mar 2021.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Deep enough for Hell to freeze over (temporarily)
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 10, 2020 at 10:21 AM
No one paper or person proves that the moon does or does not rotate on its own axis. The Madhavi notes merely demonstrate, in Fig. 2(b), that an object which is rotating about an external axis, but not on its own axis, moves as per the moon (with one face always towards the center of the orbit). The particles of the object move in concentric circles about the external axis (point O as shown in the Fig.)
If you want papers that specifically discuss the moons rotation, you could try these, by Nikola Tesla:
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
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
I wouldn’t use Tesla if I were you. Stick with the Madhavi Red Herring.
The sources you offer are nothing but bunk. The first link took me to a newspaper article dated February 1919 containing Tesla’s screeds about not only the moon’s non-rotation, but also Lightning Rods and Wireless Communications; a three-for-the-price-of-one offering from a master salesman.
Since it is a newspaper article he offers neither proofs nor references, only simple drawings of a ball on a string and a cryptic sketch of the Earth and the Moon embedded in a “solid mass.” However because he got called to the mat by several flabbergasted readers, he regales us with a second offering of a slightly more quantitative flavor.
In the second installment Tesla does calculate the Moon’s angular momentum, in his words, “Assuming that the moon does physically rotate upon its axis.” But then fails to pursue that line of thinking and reverts to his dogmatic analysis which seems based on, to use your term, “a very simple perception shift.”
At this point I wonder why Tesla wouldn’t even try to publicly debunk the extensive database of lunar rotation measurements available at the time of his writing? At that time there were thousands of datapoints available.
Most interesting to me is when Tesla says at the end of the first posting, “The future will show whether my foresight is as accurate now as it has proved heretofore.” Well, the future is here now and it won! I said yesterday that if you research this subject you will find tens of thousands of references proving Tesla wrong; I misspoke because you will find no fewer than ten million entries on a simple Google search. Example: https://elib.dlr.de/123392/1/EPSC2018-931.pdf
I did not read the third installment yet because I got so bored with the first two. I did hand it to one of my interns and I can hear them laughing in the other room!
For those without a science background, but a religious attachment to institutions, it is hard to think outside the herd mentality.
Tonto, duly noted.
OK, Tyson.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 11, 2020 at 2:52 PM
OK, Tyson.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
My intern says “No Bueno por Nada”
I think that’s how he put it.
You wrote an enormous response saying remarkably little. I just thought I would acknowledge receipt of it, out of politeness.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 11, 2020 at 3:55 PM
Stop trolling, please!
You really offered nothing of substance. Sorry.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
You never will convince people like Robertson, hunter, ClintR, Swenson, DREMT & co.
They aren’t here to discuss: they are here to discredit, denigrate, distort, and… lie.
*
End of November, if all goes well, I’ll obtain a software package from DLR, the German Aviation and Space Administration, based on the SPICE data and method interface:
https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/spiceconcept.html
which gives users full access to all ephemeris data needed for the planning of interplanetary missions.
This DLR software is able to represent e.g. Sun, Earth and Moon, the two latter orbiting and rotating about their respective center of mass.
If it is – as I hope – scalable both spatially and temporally, we should be able to look at Earth and Moon slowly orbiting and rotating during a Lunar sidereal month, and see how the Moon behaves.
*
But… right now I know this presentation will be useless: the pseudoskeptic Contrarians will tell us it’s faked.
J.-P. D.
JD, you still don’t get it.
If Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we could see that from Earth. You don’t need “special” software, you idiot.
Bindidon,
Yes, I’m not trying to convince the non-believers, I’m just having fun with them. Besides, it’s fun trying to imagine what it might be like to search far and wide for support to their position and find nothing but cartoons and newspaper articles from the turn of the century. Meanwhile, we have instruments on the moon and satellites orbiting it all collecting data, and scientists all around the world advancing the frontiers of knowledge.
The biggest problem I see at the moment is in organizing all the available information just so I can keep up to date. The SPICE concept looks to be very useful; thanks for the link, I wasn’t aware of it.
You either get it or you don’t. Sorry you don’t.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 11, 2020 at 3:54 PM
Stop trolling, please!
What is there to “get?” It’s just data!
Bulk parameters
Moon
Earth Ratio
(Moon/Earth)
Mass (1024 kg) 0.07346 5.9724 0.0123
Volume (1010 km3) 2.1968 108.321 0.0203
Equatorial radius (km) 1738.1 6378.1 0.2725
Polar radius (km) 1736.0 6356.8 0.2731
Volumetric mean radius (km) 1737.4 6371.0 0.2727
Ellipticity (Flattening) 0.0012 0.00335 0.36
Mean density (kg/m3) 3344 5514 0.606
Surface gravity (m/s2) 1.62 9.80 0.165
Surface acceleration (m/s2) 1.62 9.78 0.166
Escape velocity (km/s) 2.38 11.2 0.213
GM (x 106 km3/s2) 0.00490 0.39860 0.0123
Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
Geometric albedo 0.12 0.434 0.28
V-band magnitude V(1,0) -0.08 -3.99 –
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0 1.000
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065
Topographic range (km) 13 20 0.650
Moment of inertia (I/MR2) 0.394 0.3308 1.191
J2 (x 10-6) 202.7 1082.63 0.187
Sorry you don’t get it.
TM,
Good diversion. Nothing at all about the Moon rotating about its axis.
With no more effort, you could copy and paste the entirety of Wikipedia. Are you really trying to appear stupid, or just trolling for effect?
Keep it up. I enjoy sniggering at alarmist donkeys and their infinite capacity for stupidity.
Snape just did a copy/paste from the NASA Moon Data Sheet. An inept copy/paste, as we might expect.
I suppose he was trying to impress himself that he could find facts about Moon? But there are no facts that prove his false beliefs.
Maybe it’s time for him to change his name again?
ClintR says:
November 11, 2020 at 5:44 PM
Snape just did a copy/paste from the NASA Moon Data Sheet. An inept copy/paste, as we might expect.
I suppose he was trying to impress himself that he could find facts about Moon? But there are no facts that prove his false beliefs.
Maybe its time for him to change his name again?
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Tonto,
Why would I need to format the data? Non-spinners will not understand any of it, and the scientists already know where to find it.
That’s correct, Snape. You only did it to impress yourself.
ClintR says:
November 12, 2020 at 8:22 AM
Thats correct, Snape. You only did it to impress yourself.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Tonto, duly noted (whatever that means!).
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Yeah, have some fun with SPICE (care: it is only an interface to data and methods; the rest above is your job).
But … just as the Flat Earth Society rejects all images of the Earth from space as evidence that it is round, so will the simple-minded Contrarians rambling on this blog reject any evidence that the Moon rotates about its axis, regardless the evidence’s source.
Let them do that!
J.-P. D.
JD, the “source” means nothing if the message violates the laws of physics.
That’s where you get so fouled up. You believe your cult nonsense over reality. You believe two ice cubes can make something hotter than just one ice cube.
You’re anti-science.
Tonto (ClintR)as always, true to form calling 500 years science a cult.
“…calling 500 years nonsense a cult.”
Fixed it for you, Snape — no charge.
Tonto, duly noted.
binny…”If it is as I hope scalable both spatially and temporally, we should be able to look at Earth and Moon slowly orbiting and rotating during a Lunar sidereal month, and see how the Moon behaves”.
Why can’t you use your own brain to figure it out? Don’t you trust your own mind?
I gave you a model using two coins and you scoffed at the suggestion rather than trying it.
I recall a story of Feynman in his early days as an undergraduate. He was looking out the dorm window when he saw an ant walk across the window sill. It made the trip several times and he became intrigued as to how it always followed the same track back and forth.
You would have rushed off to encyclopedias (no Net in those days) or sent away for a some sort of authoritative explanation. Feynman got out a pencil with an eraser and erased part of the track. When the ant came back it was bamboozled because it had been laying down a trail of chemicals to find its way back and part of it was missing.
I have given you the ammo to test the Moon’s motion for yourself. I have given you facts in the past that the Moon has only linear velocity that acts in a tangential direction and is acted on by gravitational force that bends the linear velocity vector into a resultant orbital path.
You can test that using two coins but you lack the internal fortitude to trust your own intelligence. You rush off to find the opinions of others. Worse still, you denigrate a test that will prove it to you conclusively.
Your limited mental faculty has convinced you that 0.04% Co2 in the atmosphere can act in such a manner as to control the warming and cooling of the atmosphere. You did not figure that out for yourself, you appealed to authority just as the rest of your alarmists buddies in this blog and elsewhere do the same. This Moon exercise has revealed that none of you are capable of thinking for yourselves.
Gordon, in your coin model, you rotate the coin once on it’s own axis per rev. just like the moon.
ball4…”in your coin model, you rotate the coin once on it’s own axis per rev. just like the moon”.
I don’t rotate the moving coin at all, the mark on the coin is always pointed at the centre of the stationary coin and a mark opposite that mark always move parallel to it.
All I am doing by turning the coin as I slide it on the stationary coin’s perimeter is emulating the effect of gravity on the Moon’s linear velocity.
If you made the coin a little thicker, maybe like a narrower roller bearing, so it would not fall over, and you tried to move it along a level surface while keeping a mark on it against the surface, you’d have to slide it along the surface. To get the coin/roller to rotate about its axis, you’d have to roll it, then the mark would rotate through 360 degrees.
That’s exactly what I am doing with the moving coin. I cannot roll it otherwise the mark no longer points at the centre of the stationary coin. If I roll it around the stationary coin, the mark cannot point toward the centre of the coin.
Are you guys so thick you cannot see that, or can you see it and are so obtuse you cannot bring yourselves to admit it?
“All I am doing by turning the coin..”
Yes, Gordon, you are turning the coin as I wrote, you rotate the coin once on it’s own internal axis per rev. of external axis just like the moon rotates once on its own internal axis per rev. of an external axis.
ball4…”you are turning the coin as I wrote, you rotate the coin once on its own internal axis per rev. of external axis ”
One problem, there is a stipulation that a mark on the inner/near face of the coin must always point to the centre of the stationary coin. That means the marked side must always be on a path/circle that is inside a path/circle for a mark on the outer/far side.
If the coin was rotating about it’s centre, the mark on the inner side would be on the outer side at the half-orbit position.
Something lacking in your awareness if you cannot see that. Then again, you’re confused about heat as well.
Yes, Gordon, you are turning the coin as I wrote, you rotate the coin once on its own internal axis per rev. of external axis such that a mark on the inner/near face of the coin must always point to the center of the stationary coin just like the moon rotates once on its own internal axis per rev. of an external axis such that a crater on the inner/near face of the moon must always point to the Earth.
If the coin was rotating about its center more or less than once, then the mark on the inner side could be on the outer side at the half-orbit position.
Just ignore it, Gordon. Ball4 is only here to troll.
Gordon,
you are rotating the coin as you slide it around.
You said it yourself
“All I am doing by turning the coin as I slide it on the stationary coins perimeter is emulating the effect of gravity on the Moons linear velocity.”
doesn’t matter what you think you are emulating, you are turning or rotating the coin.
…and blob isn’t much better.
bob and Ball4 both went to the same cult class. They believe everything is rotating about its axis. They believe that the wooden horse, securely fastened to the MGR platform is rotating about its axis. They believe something that is merely turning is rotating about its axis. They believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
They have been well indoctrinated into their cult’s garbage.
Idiots make good little cultists.
Not everything is rotating on its own internal axis ClintR, just the things observed to be doing so, as observed for moon, ball on string, toy train, chalk circle, bolted wooden horse.
For an example of not rotating on its own internal axis, the flat plate in Madhavi Fig. 2(a) is observed revolving about an external axis but not rotating about its own internal axis; the flat plate is just translating its position not changing its orientation unlike the things I just mentioned. Madhavi:
“the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles”
ball4…”If the coin was rotating about its center more or less than once, then the mark on the inner side could be on the outer side at the half-orbit position”.
If it rotates less than once or more than once, the line marking the near face must leave the surface of the stationary coin, but not if it rotates only once??????
You have painted yourself into a corner. How the heck does it manage to rotate just once without the mark leaving the stationary perimeter, yet it manages it for more than or less than one rotation?
The only way this can work is if all points of the moving coin on a radial line from the centre of the stationary coin through moving coin are moving in concentric circles (aka parallel paths). Since all those points are also moving at the same angular velocity we have just defined curvilinear translation.
Curvilinear translation explains the phenomenon of the same side of the Moon always pointing to the Earth whereas rotation about a local axis does not. Curvilinear translation IS the orbit and the constant change in direction of the Moon wrt the stars is due to the CT of the orbit.
“Curvilinear translation explains the phenomenon of the same side of the Moon always pointing to the Earth”
You have kinematics backwards Gordon, like the backwards warriors, see curvilinear translation Fig. 2(a) in Madhavi, no plate rotation & center sees all faces. The moon moves as does plate in Fig. 2(b) rotation, same face to center.
DREMT provided the link ref.s for you explaining all this: “The Moon..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.”
“This Moon exercise has revealed that none of you are capable of thinking for yourselves.”
Absolutely. It shows who blindly follows authority, and who is a bit more open-minded. It’s the ideal discussion for that, since the argument for why the moon does not rotate on its own axis is so simple that anybody can understand it. If they choose to.
The Moon is doing what it does. Fact. All the talk of models, proof, and disproof is pointless.
There is no point at all. But hey, how we choose to waste our time is our affair. Obviously, nobody has enough spare time to produce a testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe all the Moon stuff is just a diversion, so that alarmist donkeys won’t have to face reality.
Who knows?
Thanks for the precious hint, Mike Flynn!
Binny joins the ranks of deluded alarmist donkeys. He cannot face reality, so tries to create his own! Who is Mike Flynn? A mythic and imaginary adversary – used by alarmist donkeys as the reason that they are unable to face facts!
And while you have been arguing about flat Moon you missed the ice melting catastrophe has been called off
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2020_day_315_1981-2010.png
Called off? https://tinyurl.com/yyjq5kmr
Eben
… the ice melting catastrophe has been called off ”
What catastrophe?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
Everything OK, Eben!
The Arctic sea ice extent just went a bit below 2012 during October, as it did last year.
And now it moves up again.
See you next year at the same day.
J.-P. D.
What’s the matter non-spinner brainlets, you are falling off pace and will not beat your last month’s record number of >4,000 posts; apply yourselves.
So far from your side: Tesla’s rubbish newspaper article and Madhavi class notes red herring.
On the scientific side, just to show two examples,
https://tinyurl.com/Earth-Moon-spin
https://tinyurl.com/Earth-Moon-Physics
The first video makes the same mistake as many. They are claiming Moon is rotating about its axis because it “appears” to be rotating about its axis. They are confusing orbital motion with axial rotation. That’s what idiots do, Snape.
That nonsense is easily debunked by the ball on a string, or the wooden horse.
The second video only involves orbiting, so it is not as invalid. It does allow the vectors to be shown, which is very useful. Many idiots do not understand how the orbit occurs.
Tonto, duly noted.
TM,
Duly noted?
Because you couldnt understand it? You must have a large pile of notes by now.
Make a note.
“The first video makes the same mistake as many.”
ClintR’s wife calls him on his cell, be careful Clint the news is saying that there’s an idiot driving the wrong way on the freeway.
Clint responds, no honey, there’s hundreds of them!
Discovered some glitches in the 2nd video. Reducing mass of Moon should allow it to escape Earth gravity, but the reverse happens. Also, Earth has an unexplained drift.
The video must have been “pal-reviewed”.
Tonto, you actually ran the simulation? That’s heresy for your kind isn’t it?
If you want to see what happens sans gravity, just turn it off.
FYI… one of my interns just did a take-off on one of your tribe’s experiments by walking around the desk holding an analog compass. Observations:
1.- Shuffle along a circle with the direction of travel arrow on the compass’ baseplate always pointing at the desk. The magnetized needle rotates 360 degrees inside the bezel, and the intern always presents the same side (front) to the desk.
2.- Walk along the same circle as before but holding the direction of travel arrow and the magnetized needle both always pointing to magnetic north. The magnetized needle never moves of course, and the intern presents all sides to the desk.
Conclusions:
Case 1 replicates the earth-moon system as it is today with the moon rotating once on its axis for each orbit around the earth.
Case 2 is “No Bueno por Nada” when it comes to explaining the present spin-orbit state of the earth-moon system.
You can do this with a digital compass of course but I think the analog style is more suited for your y’all.
Don’t go doing too much science there, you might get excommunicated!
A wooden horse is securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round, such that when the merry-go-round is stationary, it physically cannot rotate on its own axis. When the merry-go-round rotates, the wooden horse is revolving about the center of the merry-go-round, with the same side always oriented towards the center of the merry-go-round.
Is the wooden horse rotating on its own axis?
Case 1 — Yes, a compass needle points North.
Case 2 — Yes, a compass needle points North.
If you rotate while orbiting, different sides will be seen from center of orbit. That’s what Earth is doing. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. That’s why we only see one side of it from Earth.
TM,
Compass needles? Try it on the Moon!
Experiments? Alarmist donkeys claim computer models and delusional fantasies are experiments. The Moon does what it does. Newtons Laws coincide with observations. No other explanation needed.
Join your interns walking around a stationary object. You might have to listen to others laughing at your pointless antics. Make a note.
If my State Fair doesn’t get canceled this year I’ll be sure and ride the merry-go-round and strap my compass to the horse’s head; it’s same motion as my Case 1 above, so same result.
The correct answer is that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, which is why it will point through N, E, S and W. So your compass proves only that the object is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis.
Snape can’t give the correct answer to the simple question. Because he can’t stand reality.
It’s the same reason Ball4 can’t admit two ice cubes can’t make isomething hotter that one ice cube.
They hate reality.
The correct answer is that the wooden horse is forced to be rotating once per rev. on its own axis just like the moon, ball on string, toy train, chalk circle. DREMT’s source ref.:
“The Moon..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.”
I’ve experimentally answered ClintR’s ice cube question elsewhere; ClintR, the ice cube nazi, doesn’t ever believe observations or experimental results when it comes to ice cubes, wooden horses, or the moon.
TM,
You have no intention of carrying out your silly nonsense, have you?
Typical alarmist donkey – living in a fantasy world. Reality doesnt pay any attention to what you think.
Make a note.
Just ignore it…maybe it will go away.
Ball4
Please, please avoid using the word ‘nazi’ to characterize persons.
Nazis were responsible for WW II, which ‘cost’ 50 M deaths, murdered about 6 M Jewish people and many hundred thousands of Germans.
J.-P. D.
Ball4 is just here to troll…ignore it, and hopefully it will go away.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 12, 2020 at 3:54 PM
The correct answer is that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, which is why it will point through N, E, S and W. So your compass proves only that the object is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
“it will point through N, E, S and W.” You omitted N again as it returns to the starting point. That is exactly the definition of one rotation for each orbit, which rotation is described by the magnetized needle on the compass. Check mate!
What else have you got bruh?
Wasn’t capitalized Bindidon.
It points through N, E, S, W, and back to N, because it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Checkmate.
It points through N, E, S, W, and back to N, because it is rotating about an external axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and on its own internal axis once per rev.
Once again DREMT confuses intentionally by not differentiating which axis.
JD pleads: “Please, please avoid using the word ‘nazi’ to characterize persons.”
JD, the Nazis were a cult. Bad things happen when cults go too far. Cults form around false beliefs and then start rejecting reality.
Is a ball on a string rotating about its axis?
Can two ice cubes warm something hotter than just one ice cube?
Cult members here can’t even answer those simple questions. They reject reality. Add that to their false accusations, insults, and attacks, and you could almost describe them as “Blog Nazis”.
TM,
A magnetised needle generally points to magnetic north. Alarmist donkeys create their own definitions – cooling is heating, magnetised needles are used to measure rotation about the centre of gravity of a body, and temperatures are measured in W/m2!
Next thing, youll be trying to define the Greenhouse Effect as being something to do with greenhouses!
Carry on creating your own reality. How is your fantasy note collection going? Do your imaginary interns have to spend much time collating your imaginary notes, or are you moving on to a new fantasy – where somebody believes you are wise and influential?
Oh well, a good laugh doesnt go astray. Keep them coming.
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock.” [Nikola Tesla]
ClintR,
The escape velocity is not dependent on the mass of the object escaping, but you would have known that had you taken any physics courses.
Well there you go, intellectually challenged by a bag of hammers.
escape velocity = SquareRoot(2*G*M/r)
Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the orbital radius of the Moon, and 2 is well, the number 2.
ClintR loses another battle of wits.
Wrong again, bob.
It’s conservation of energy. To maintain the same energy, if you reduce mass, the speed has to increase.
Once called out, ClintR realizes has to change the original problem statement by adding: “To maintain the same energy..”
Ball4 tries more of his cult tactics. Now he claiming that I changed the “original problem”! He doesn’t even know what issue is being discussed. But he knows he has to misrepresent those that represent reality.
He’s just another idiot troll, in the same cult as bob, Norman, Nate, bdgwx, Bindidon, and the rest.
ClintR fumbles a physics question again.
“Its conservation of energy. To maintain the same energy, if you reduce mass, the speed has to increase.”
It’s not about conservation of energy, who said the energy of the Moon has to stay constant, it’s not part of the problem.
Escape velocity is not dependent on mass.
bob, I know you can’t understand physics. There’s been plenty of evidence. My response is merely to set the record straight in case others are interested.
Your preference is to always attempt to distort reality. I don’t expect you to change.
ClintR,
Yeah, Right,
The thing is, I have taken and passed physics courses.
bob, there is no evidence you have ANY physics understanding. In fact, the evidence indicates you don’t know what you’re talking about. I have had to correct you numerous times, just on the basics. I had to help you solve Norman’s example, that he couldn’t solve.
You don’t understand physics, and you can’t learn.
ClintR,
If you recall correctly, I solved it without your help, I was just posting wrong answers because you poorly stated the problem, as usual and were just posting a gotcha test.
You haven’t corrected me numerous times, because you lack the physics understanding a person who has taken college level physics possesses.
Get it right, the Moon rotates on two different axes, the ball on a string rotates on two different axes, the pony on the carousel rotates on two different axes, and I could go on.
The four Galilean moons of Jupiter are all revolving around Jupiter keeping one face towards Jupiter, do they all rotate at the same rate?
Obviously no, because from one to any of the others, an observer could see all sides of the other three moons.
So the four Galilean moons of Jupiter are like the Moon, they are all rotating on their respective internal axes.
“…the ball on a string rotates on two different axes, the pony on the carousel rotates on two different axes, and I could go on.”
Bindidon says: “…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
Please go and argue with Bindidon.
DREMPTY,
Let’s talk about the Galilean moons instead.
Are they all rotating at the same rate, in other words, are they all not rotating, or have an axial rotation rate of zero?
Or do you like your elegant proof that 27.3 days equals 1.7 days equals 3.6 days equals 7.2 days equals 16.7 days?
They all take different times to complete an orbit.
Now go and argue with Bindidon.
DREMPT,
And they all take different time to change their orientation by 360 degrees.
Orbiting, without axial rotation, involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
Now go and argue with Bindidon.
More evidence of your perverting reality, bob:
* No, you didn’t solve the problem CORRECTLY. I had to help you.
* I have had to correct you numerous times.
* Moon does NOT rotate on two different axes, nor does a ball on a string. That’s just your imagination taking you away from reality.
* Jupiter’s Galilean moons are thought to be orbiting, but not rotating about their axes. So from Jupiter, you would only see one side of the 4 moons. Just like we only see one side of out moon.
CLintR,
You should see the same rotation or lack of rotation no matter what your vantage point is.
If the Galilean moons are not rotating, you should see that from any vantage point, from Jupiter, from the Earth, from any of the four Galilean moons, or from anywhere else.
Study some physics, maybe you will figure it out.
But you don’t know any physics and your are locked into your cult of anti-science.
“You should see the same rotation or lack of rotation no matter what your vantage point is.”
Obviously wrong…bob, picture the moon not rotating on its own axis as the “Spinners” would see it, as you would see it. Viewed from Earth, it would be rotating on its own axis! You would see all sides of it from Earth.
Not if it is experiencinf day/night cycles rotating on its own axis once per rev. as explained by DREMT’s provided link ref.s:
“The Moon..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.”
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock.” [Nikola Tesla]
The metal ball does not suddenly start rotating on its own axis when the string is cut, it was already rotating on its own axis prior to the string being cut (Newton’s first law of motion)
bob’s gone very quiet.
DREMPT
“Obviously wrongbob, picture the moon not rotating on its own axis as the Spinners would see it, as you would see it. Viewed from Earth, it would be rotating on its own axis! You would see all sides of it from Earth.”
Except for the fact that viewing all sides of an object is not a test of whether the object in question is spinning or not.
If it is not spinning, it’s not spinning, no matter where you are viewing it from.
Viewed from Earth, you would see all sides of the non-rotating Moon because the Moon is orbiting the Earth
You said:
“You should see the same rotation or lack of rotation no matter what your vantage point is.”
You were wrong.
DREMT,
The laws of physics are the same everywhere.
You are saying they are different from inside the Moon’s orbit versus outside the Moon’s orbit.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect.
How can something that is spinning from one viewpoint, be not spinning from another viewpoint.
I thought I was wrong once, but I found out later that I was mistaken.
In many ways I agree with you. For instance, the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, despite how it may appear to be moving, from different frames of reference.
I guess I was pointing out that most people on your side of the argument would disagree with your statement. We frequently hear that a frame of reference in which r=0 goes through the center of mass of the object, and a=0 is fixed on some distant star, is the one true and correct reference frame in order to determine axial rotation. Of course, that is wrong, since from this reference frame you cannot discern whether the object is rotating about an external axis (and not on its own axis) or not.
DREMPT,
You should lay off of the bold font, it’s a clear sign that you are misrepresenting something.
Like claiming a replicable observation is just something appearing to be.
You are claiming we are seeing mirages, when we are making actual credible observations.
Now we know you are just lying when you use the bold font.
The Moon is rotating on its axis, that’s a credible observation made by thousands of Astronomers, pro and amateur alike, not an apparition.
I thought you liked the reference frame with the center at the center of mass of the Moon with a line pointing to a distant star, add the colinear point the the surface of the Moon.
Now allow time to pass, the three points become not colinear in short order, proving that the Moon rotates. Then 27 days later, they are colinear again, wonder why?
We are getting into the Pythagorean Theorem territory with the number of times we spinners have proved that the Moon is actually spinning on its axis.
Oh, and where was that definition of rotation about an axis internal to a body, maybe we can use that to check if the Moon rotates. I hear Dr. Mahdavi has a good one.
OK bob, I’ll just go back to saying you were wrong.
You said:
“You should see the same rotation or lack of rotation no matter what your vantage point is.”
You were wrong.
DREMT,
So you believe the laws of physics are dependent on where you stand?
That would not be correct.
So Sorry.
“Now allow time to pass, the three points become not colinear in short order, proving that the Moon rotates. Then 27 days later, they are colinear again, wonder why?”
Because the moon is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
bobdroege says:
November 14, 2020 at 10:48 AM
DREMT,
So you believe the laws of physics are dependent on where you stand?
That would not be correct.
So Sorry.
=========================================
And yet you stand on a fixed star, lock on the track and focus close up to the moon and determine its rotating. And even some of you bleebs when you zoom out and see earth rotating around the moon from such a perspective say thats normal.
Yes the moon is rotating. . . . around the earth.
Bill,
I hope you are not an engineer, as I wouldn’t trust you to build a bridge for the Daisey’s to march over.
You say
“And yet you stand on a fixed star, lock on the track and focus close up to the moon and determine its rotating. And even some of you bleebs when you zoom out and see earth rotating around the moon from such a perspective say thats normal.
Yes the moon is rotating. . . . around the earth.”
Yes, from a distant point, the Moon is observed to rotate on its axis.
Zooming out, you would observe the Moon orbiting the Earth, not the Earth rotating around the Earth.
Yes, the Moon is orbiting the Earth, as well as rotating on its axis, as observations for the last 400 years show.
And DREMPT,
doubles down on the wrong Moon is orbiting but not rotating theme that has been debunked a thousand times.
The Moon is orbiting and rotating on its axis, which you have already admitted when you said it was only changing its orientation, which means it is rotating.
Give it up, you lost this argument a long time ago.
bob’s being silly again.
Bob doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has never looked through optics that have a tracking lock.
Just a big ego thinking he knows everything making a typical fool of himself.
Bill just attacks me with no evidence that I have looked through an optical device with a tracking mechanism, I assure you that I have such a device in my possession and know how to use it.
As for my “big ego”
You haven’t shown any evidence that I think I know more than I know.
Care to address my arguments, rather than my ego?
The Moon spins on its axis, and revolves around the Earth on another axis.
Those are observations made with optical devices with tracking mechanisms, do I need to link again to videos of the Moons libration?
#2
bob’s being silly again.
An image locked on the moon for the purpose of determining lunar axial rotation will show the earth orbiting around the moon.
As so often, its difficult to discern the point being made by Bill.
If I lock-on to an asteroid travelling thru the solar system, it will appear stationary and the Sun and planets will appear to be moving past it.
If I lock on to a star, we will see that it is the asteroid that is moving thru.
If I see the asteroid is spinning, it makes no difference if Im tracking the asteroid or the star, it is spinning.
Because translation and rotation are different things..
Nate they are only 2 different things if you can mathematically differentiate them.
Thats because the concept of rotation or alternatively orbiting and spinning must be defined via mutually exclusive values.
The question that needs to be answered is if the moon is rotating around the earth while keeping a face to earth does that require additional energy to accomplish that. Or alternatively as maintained by folks like Tesla entail a need for additional energy to rotate the moon so earth sees all sides.
You should be able to experimentally test a merry-go-round for those values with spinning globes and non-spinning globes.
An engineer would be required to supply additional motors to the spinning globes to make them behave like they aren’t spinning on their own axis if we adopt your view.
So is this additional need for energy to spin the globes in the opposite direction of the merry-go-round compensated for by requiring less energy to spin the merry-go-round?
I say no!
So what could be wrong here? Is it your choice of vantage points that makes you believe the moon is spinning on its own axis? If so that makes you the flat earther.
As I see it in L=mvr for orbital angular momentum fully accounts for the mass/velocity/radius-from-center necessary to calculate out all the start up and shut down values of spinning the merry-go-round and if you want to add more motion to the merry-go-round like by spinning globe cars you have to add it and supply additional energy.
Those are the principles surrounding the kinematics. Learn the kinematics then you understand how things are put together and how they will operate.
So what could be wrong here? L=mvr is for a particle m at radius r, not the whole rigid body merry-go-round for which you need the moment of inertia I of the whole merry-go-round and angular velocity w: mgr L = Iw.
Here I includes turning (Gordon term) the bolted mgr wooden horses on their own axes once per rev.
Bill doesnt address the issue of vantage point but instead goes off on left turn to nowhere…
“The question that needs to be answered is if the moon is rotating around the earth while keeping a face to earth does that require additional energy to accomplish that.”
This was the question that Bill asked you that you endlessly evaded answering!
His point, that went over your head, was that the Moon has more energy because it is rotating than an object just orbiting with no rotation.
Show the math or sulk off with your tail between your legs.
Ball4 says:
So what could be wrong here? L=mvr is for a particle m at radius r, not the whole rigid body merry-go-round
——————————
I am talking about every single particle in the merry-go-round dimwit!
“Show the math ”
Wha u takin bout Willis??
“or sulk off with your tail between your legs.”
Delusional about how this argument is going for your side..
No bill 2:36am, your L=mvr is for one point particle m at distance r that has no rotational inertia on its own axis.
To be “talking about every single particle in the merry-go-round” as a rigid body you have to integrate over all particle’s (including horses rotational inertia as they are not point particles) and platform inertia (total mass) at every r which is done for you in the messy moment of inertia calculation. mgr L=Iw
In the mgr case, the mgr assembly moment of inertia, I, would be found from experiment.
From this, it is clear bill doesn’t know what bill is writing about. Just like Gordon.
“Thats because the concept of rotation or alternatively orbiting and spinning must be defined via mutually exclusive values.”
We showed you how ORBIT is defined from real sources, and that it does not include the body’s rotation.
And…you ignored this.
Nate you are the one confused.
You are confused by the breaking or releasing of the string in the case of a ball spun on a string.
Break the string and the result will likely be independent spin. But the string of gravity never breaks.
Since you can’t show a lessening of the orbital momentum of a disk by actually having particles of the disk rotate in the opposite direction . . . .it is an inherent part of the angular momentum attributable to the rotational lever arm of gravity from the point of center of gravity.
Indeed you can divide the orbital angular momentum of a disk into imaginary categories and demonstrate that if and only if the disk breaks those categories will emerge out of the whole.
You can even probably break off a backwards spinning globe from the merry-go-round and have that globe not spin when breaking away.
But there is nothing remarkable about that feature that leads you to the wrong conclusion.
Sound waves from two vibrating objects can cancel each other out if the frequency and amplitude are identical and in opposite phase.
So your answer to that would be if you applied the same logic you do to orbital angular momentum is because you can’t perceive the sound the two objects must not be vibrating.
So the facts are that for every orbiting object there is one rotation for each orbit. This single rotation that exists on a different axis from independent spin always gives exactly one additional sidereal rotation for every orbital rotation. Never less and never more.
So the moon has 1 orbital rotation in a month, and zero spin axis rotations.
The moon has 1 solar orbital rotation per year, plus 12 earth rotations, and zero spin axis rotations.
The earth has 1 solar orbital rotation per year, plus 365.25 spin axis rotations.
Bill.
I’ll respond to one of your points, please do me the favor of doing the same.
“You are confused by the breaking or releasing of the string in the case of a ball spun on a string.
Break the string and the result will likely be independent spin.”
I can agree that. NB DREMT does not.
“But the string of gravity never breaks.”
Yes. But gravity force and string force are different. The string prevents independent rotation.
Gravity does not prevent or cause independent rotation.
The evidence is observed planets like Earth with independent rotation.
Physics explains the why. Gravity acts thru the COG of a sphere. Thus it applies no torque. No torque, rotation is independent of gravity.
I will address one more interesting point of yours.
“So the facts are that for every orbiting object there is one rotation for each orbit. This single rotation that exists on a different axis from independent spin always gives exactly one additional sidereal rotation for every orbital rotation.”
“The earth has 1 solar orbital rotation per year, plus 365.25 spin axis rotations.”
This idea of yours is actually testable.
You are saying that there are two axes of rotation of the Earth. The spin axis is tilted at 23.5 degrees, and is aiming at Polaris, the North star.
The orbital axis is normal to the ecliptic plane, and is 23.5 degrees away from the spin axis.
So lets say we orbit half way around in 6 months. We have 1/2x 365.25 spin axis rotations, and 1/2 of a solar axis rotation.
The 1/2 rotation around the solar axis means that all parts of the Earth have moved a half-circle around this axis.
But that includes the North Pole! That means the North Pole is now no longer pointed at Polaris!
Which obviously does not actually happen. SO your model fails the test.
“You are confused by the breaking or releasing of the string in the case of a ball spun on a string.
Break the string and the result will likely be independent spin.”
Agreed, bill. Just for the record.
Yes DREMT I thought you did. It is even mentioned by Tesla as being fundamentally different issue than the moon.
The moon will not fly off in a straight tangent line (nor did it enter orbit in a straight tangent line).
Indeed, it looks only Clint now remains a believer in the Moon flying off with no rotation. DREMT’s position has evolved toward the spinners view on this.
But The TEAMs model of Earth’s rotation is still proven wrong.
What say you, Bill?
Nate says:
”Ill respond to one of your points, please do me the favor of doing the same.
You are confused by the breaking or releasing of the string in the case of a ball spun on a string.
Break the string and the result will likely be independent spin.
I can agree that. NB DREMT does not.”
You continue to deny what DREMT clearly states as true. Like your failure to recognize that DREMT agrees the moon rotates around the axis determined by orbital angular momentum. As long as you remain in denial of what DREMT believes you will remain blind to the issue. Once you open your mind to all that, if ever, it will become clear what DREMT believes and then it will be perceived beyond your ability to dispute with anything but opinion.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”But the string of gravity never breaks.
Yes. But gravity force and string force are different. The string prevents independent rotation.”
As does gravity for the moon. If independent spin exists its only temporal and will be consumed/absorbed through the friction of gravity.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Gravity does not prevent or cause independent rotation.
The evidence is observed planets like Earth with independent rotation.
Physics explains the why. Gravity acts thru the COG of a sphere. Thus it applies no torque. No torque, rotation is independent of gravity.”
Gravity alone does not create an orbit Nate. Having a lever still requires a force or momentum to move the lever. A force without a lever cannot stop the spin of anything nor create a spin on anything. But nature provides a lever to all the above and that lever points directly at the COG of earth, a fact your statement above is in denial of.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”The 1/2 rotation around the solar axis means that all parts of the Earth have moved a half-circle around this axis. But that includes the North Pole! That means the North Pole is now no longer pointed at Polaris!
Which obviously does not actually happen. SO your model fails the test.”
It never was pointed at Polaris. It is just near Polaris. You are simply making the same error MikeR is making with his equatorial telescope. Polaris (~.47au in diameter) is near an ellipse scribed in the sky by the earths spin axis. The earth rotates around the sun and moves 2au distance in 6 months (while traveling a path of about 3au. That ellipse is about 4 diameters of Polaris. A bit more on the long dimension and a bit less on the short dimension of the ellipse.
Thus Polaris will appear to move a bit less than 4 diameters of Polaris in the telescope view over the course of 6 months from the winter solstice to the summer solstice. If the move is from the spring equinox to the fall equinox it will be a fraction more than 4 diameters of Polaris.
“It is even mentioned by Tesla as being fundamentally different issue than the moon.”
Yes, balls on strings are indeed a fundamentally different issue than the moon. Tesla went into that in some detail. Funny how SGW quoted Tesla:
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock.”
But didn’t go on to give any of his explanations as to why (which do not involve the ball on a string rotating on its own axis before the string breaks)!
“It never was pointed at Polaris. It is just near Polaris. You are simply making the same error MikeR is making with his equatorial telescope. Polaris (~.47au in diameter) is near an ellipse scribed in the sky by the earths spin axis. The earth rotates around the sun and moves 2au distance in 6 months (while traveling a path of about 3au. That ellipse is about 4 diameters of Polaris. A bit more on the long dimension and a bit less on the short dimension of the ellipse.
”
“Thus Polaris will appear to move a bit less than 4 diameters of Polaris in the telescope view over the course of 6 months from the winter solstice to the summer solstice. If the move is from the spring equinox to the fall equinox it will be a fraction more than 4 diameters of Polaris.”
The au size of Polaris is not relevant, nor is its the au size of the ellipse it moves around.
Its ANGULAR motion is relevant, and that is TEENY TINY.
“Polaris is located at RA 2h 41m 39s, Dec. +89° 15′ 51″. Because the stars circle about the sky every 24 hours, right ascension or RA ranges from 0h to 24h.”
The Earth’s axis points to 90 degrees Declinsation, thus < 1 degree from Polaris. Year round.
Your Model requires the Earths Pole to move on a CIRCLE on the celestial sphere that is 23.5 degrees in radius away from Polaris.
C'mon Bill, that is SIMPLY NOT HAPPENING.
That is not happening because the Earth's SPIN axis is fixed on a spot on the celestial sphere which has made navigation by the stars possible for centuries.
“As does gravity for the moon. If independent spin exists its only temporal and will be consumed/absorbed through the friction of gravity.”
The independent spin of the Moon or planets can last millions of years…
A string attched to a ball does not allow any independent spin
Nate says:
‘’Your Model requires the Earths Pole to move on a CIRCLE on the celestial sphere that is 23.5 degrees in radius away from Polaris.’’
‘’C’mon Bill, that is SIMPLY NOT HAPPENING.’’
Yes. Nate are you in denial that the earth actually travels around the sun? Are you denial that the plane of the orbit (elliptic plane) is not perpendicular to the earth’s spin axis?
Replace the earth’s spin axis with a chalk pencil tilted 66.5 degrees to the elliptic plane. Put a chalkboard parallel to the elliptic plane in contact with the tip of the chalk pencil. Revolve the earth around the sun and scribe the earth’s orbit on the chalkboard.
Then tilt the chalk board up on its edge by 23.5 degrees. From earth the shape drawn will appear more elliptical than it was when it was parallel to the elliptic plane from the vantage point of the COG of the sun.
Nate says:
‘’That is not happening because the Earth’s SPIN axis is fixed on a spot on the celestial sphere which has made navigation by the stars possible for centuries.’’
That’s a laugher there Nate. You need to go brush up on your trigonometry.
Celestial naval navigation (which I worked as an assistant to my dad who taught it to wannabee sailors) is possible because error introduced by the earth’s orbit of approximately 2 au diameter is a pittance in relationship to the distance of Polaris which is about 20.4mm au from earth.
Use some basic trigonometry to figure out how many degrees Polaris moves due to the earth’s orbit around the sun.
Shooting Polaris to determine latitude requires you to see the horizon at the same time so you can plot the zenith angle, which gives you your latitude. If you don’t know how far away from true north Polaris is you will be off by about up to 50 miles.
Polaris being not exactly in line with the earth’s spin axis moves daily in the sky in a small circle. So you need tables to correct for that.
But that’s an entirely different matter than error introduced by the earth rotating around the sun which is measured in hundredths of a second. Thats far too small to consider in seafaring celestial navigation.
A modern sextant is accurate to about 6/10ths of a minute. But to get that good as everything is moving in the view of the sextant takes practice and multiple shots.
There are mathematics to take multiple sightings and get even more accurate than the accuracy of the instrument.
But the 89° 15′ 51″ you state Polaris is at, the error from earth rotating on its own axis requires an adjustment to get decent accuracy on a sextant.
But forget making an adjustment for the change of position brought about solely by the navigator rotating around the sun. That is only a + or – .01’’ error. Since the best sextant seafaring navigators using the best tables and best math and multiple shots have an accuracy of about + or – 15’’ the position of the rotational axis of the earth is way to small to consider in seafaring navigation. But OTOH, that + or – .01’’ blows MikeR’s and your rotational argument to smithereens. . . .that is unless you want to argue that people rotating on the surface of the earth aren’t moving anywhere in space. . . .very much the kind of argument given by flat earthers.
Nate says:
Indeed, it looks only Clint now remains a believer in the Moon flying off with no rotation. DREMTs position has evolved toward the spinners view on this.
———————-
Still wrong Nate. DREMT only indicated that the orbital rotation would convert to axial rotation in the case of the ball and string in alignment with Tesla.
DREMT remains in alignment with Tesla that the moon would not rotate coming into an going out of orbit. Since angular momentum contains an r value escaping orbit is like the iceskater reextending her hands and leg. The angular momentum is forever conserved as orbital angular momentum.
So as usual when losing an argument you have to go into the strawman building business real quick. Your strawman work looks like the work of a gypsy driveway repair crew.
Bill, your moving yet not moving Pole star is all very confused.
“Still wrong Nate. DREMT only indicated that the orbital rotation would convert to axial rotation in the case of the ball and string in alignment with Tesla.
DREMT remains in alignment with Tesla that the moon would not rotate coming into an going out of orbit”
I recall reading this Tesla statement and thinking then that it made absolutely no sense.
He had no logical argument why the Moon should behave differently than the ball on the string. And yet, DREMT simply accepted that the great Tesla could not be wrong.
Bill
“Chalkboard yada yada” makes no sense.
And you figured out why here
“by the earth’s orbit of approximately 2 au diameter is a pittance in relationship to the distance of Polaris which is about 20.4mm au from earth.”
The Earth axis points close to Polaris for its whole orbit.
“shots have an accuracy of about + or – 15’’ the position of the rotational axis of the earth is way to small to consider in seafaring navigation. But OTOH, that + or – .01’’ blows MikeR’s and your rotational argument to smithereens.”
Bill, nothing that you have said there rebuts our argument!
You are losing it..the argument…and your mind.
Yes Nate it blows your argument clean out of the water.
Your argument boils down to the fact that the moon rotates on its own axis from the perspective of the stars and that you reversed that argument by claiming the axis points at a single star.
The difference between .01″ as deviation to a seafaring navigator translates to an axis traveling round a circle near Polaris with a diameter of 2 au.
And of course the non-spinner argument is exactly that a 2au diameter rotation around the sun’s COG.
So thank you for making the non-spinner case.
“stars and that you reversed that argument by claiming the axis points at a single star.”
Not a reversal at all! You need to go findvyour lost marbles.
The Earth is simply a gyroscope, whose axis pointing at (near) a fixed star, Polaris.
It is not behaving like something on a merry go round sweeping thru a large arc on the celestial sphere.
You seem to be talking about the teeny tiny effect of parallax.
Which is entirely a red herring, and unrelared to what Im talking about.
And back to the Moon. Its pole is pointed to (near) a fixed star, 6.7vdegrees from its orbital axis,like a gyroscope, and also not sweeping thru an arc on the celestal sphere during a single orbit of Moon or Earth.
Thus it is Rotating on its axis. There is simply way to otherwise explain this.
so nate considering you are claiming a new law of axial precession being unique to a tilted orbit when are you going to publish?
“claiming a new law of axial precession”
Again making up vague BS that I am claiming, that I never claimed.
Maybe you should hire Rudy Guiliani to investigate.
OK Nate you aren’t publishing anything and can’t find any references to describe the separation of orbital angular momentum from spin angular momentum so we are back to square one with Madhavi being the only source produced so far.
Score Nate zero. DREMT 1. Is there a time limit on this game? Its been going on for months and it remains a shutout. How much more time do you want?
Ok bill,
Just like Trump ‘won’ the election.
Ha ha ha ha!
You are not really making any sense.
Come back when you’ve got an actual argument and can explain it coherently.
Yes Nate, these clowns would have had so many victories, if only they hadn’t been stolen by Evil Wizards employing the Dark Arts (a.k.a. the Scientific Method).
To correct this malfeasance, I think your suggestion of Rudi G is totally appropriate.
I am confident he can eventually get the US Supreme Court to rule on whether the Moon rotates on it’s rotational axis.
I am sure Rudi will have much better luck with this one than his current efforts.
p.s. Here is another of Bill’s “victories” –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556663
While for DREM there are so many similar “victories” over the ages that I have lost count.
MikeR is desperate for attention again.
DREM,
As for attention seeking behaviour, I stand in awe. Currently, for this month, you have 539 comments to my 68 comments ( including this one) .
As they say, in the rag trade, “never mind the quality, feel the width”.
I know, people just will not stop responding to me! No idea why I am so popular. Even now I expect you will respond to this…
snape…”On the scientific side, just to show two examples,
https://tinyurl.com/Earth-Moon-spin ”
The commentor in this video not only sounds like a blithering idiot, he is a blithering idiot. He has drawn a line through the centre of the Moon and notes that it turns through 360 degrees as it completes one orbit. So, the idiot claims that proves the Moon is rotating on its axis.
What the goof needs to do is draw two more lines parallel to that line: one on the near face and one on the far face. Then it becomes totally apparent that the three lines are moving in concentric circles. Ergo, the far face line can never change places with the near face line at the halfway point as would be required for rotation about the centre.
And why are you so thick you cannot see that?
Why can’t you see that the three lines are rotating and not moving parallel?
Far face line – near face line moon near face line – far face line
start after 1/2 revolution
See, they changed places.
bob, the lines would not represent rotating about it axis. You still confuse orbiting with rotating about its axis. You’re still trying to claim the wooden horse is rotating about its axis.
You haven’t learned a thing. Idiots can’t learn.
ClintR,
The facts of the matter are that the wooden horse, the my little pony, the ball on a string, the Moon, and the chalk circle are all rotating on their axes, no matter what I claim.
Them’s the facts mam.
And you’re still Eben’s little witch, but with a b.
How’s that feel to be pwned?
In your world of make believe bob, things that can’t possibly rotate about their axes can rotate about their axes. Reality means nothing to you cultists.
Your nonsense is well documented here, confirming that you are an idiot.
In ClintR’s world of make believe, things that are forced to rotate about their internal axes once per rev. of external axis, can’t ever possibly rotate about their internal axes. Reality, observation, and experiment mean nothing to ClintR’s imagination.
CLintR,
You still got pwned by Eben, how does that feel?
bob,
Do you really think that meaningless gibberish makes you appear less idiotic?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Swenson,
Same to you with your miserable rubbish of a post.
Care to demonstrate intelligence higher than that of a slime mold?
Might take you a few parsecs.
bob,
More juvenile gibberish from you.
You do realise that a parsec is not a measure of time, dont you?
If, instead, you are trying to be gratuitously offensive, you need to work harder. Keep at it.
Swenson,
I was trying to respond to a post by Gordon, but you and ClintR have to jump in with your miserable excuses for coherent thought.
You might have to walk a few parsecs in order to straighten out that mess of a brain you have that is sort of rotten and insane.
bobd…”Why cant you see that the three lines are rotating and not moving parallel?”
I have already acknowledged that but they are not rotating about the Moon’s centre. They are rotating wrt the background stars but that has nothing to do with a local rotation about the Moon’s centre. In fact, the Moon’s centre is moving in parallel with the other two tangential lines.
If you put a ball on a floor to represent the Moon, and you wanted to keep the same side of the ball against the floor, yet move the ball in a straight line to another part of the Moon, you’d have to slide it to that point. If you rolled it, you’d have rotation about an axis but the side against the floor could not remain against the floor.
Sliding the ball along the floor is rectilinear translation. Curvilinear translation is exactly the same with the exception that we move along a curved path that requires a different coordinate system, hence a different definition of parallel. With the former, all points on the ball must move parallel to the floor at the same speed, which requires sliding the ball.
With CT, the motion is described with a radial line from an external axis through the ball’s centre and tangent lines perpendicular to the radial line at all points where the radial line passes through the ball. All points on the radial line must move parallel to each other and at the same angular velocity of the rotating radial line.
That’s exactly what is going on with the Moon’s motion in its orbit. Those two tangential lines at the near and far face change direction because gravity is always acting on the Moon’s near face to divert it’s rectilinear translation into an orbit.
bobd…bit of brain lock…”yet move the ball in a straight line to another part of the Moon”
is obviously…”yet move the ball in a straight line to another part of the room”
Gordon moans:
“With CT, the motion is described with a radial line from an external axis through the ball’s centre and tangent lines perpendicular to the radial line at all points where the radial line passes through the ball. All points on the radial line must move parallel to each other and at the same angular velocity of the rotating radial line.”
Completely and utterly WRONG. For two or more years you have yet to understand what curvilinear translation is. How can you lecture us when you don’t get this simple kinematic concept???
With curvilinear translation, NO LINE drawn through the body can rotate. The moon does NOT exhibit curvilinear translation. The seat of a ferris wheel is a great example of curvilinear translation.
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
]
None of the above is true for your example. A line drawn through the ball does NOT remain parallel to its original position. All points on the ball in your example move on concentric circles. So the ball is NOT translating curvilinearly.
Gordon,
The tangential lines are fixed to the Moon, if they are rotating with respect to the distant stars, then the Moon is rotating with respect to the distant stars.
Rectilinear motion is in a straight line with no change in orientation.
Curvilinear motion is in curved lines with no change in orientation.
Rotation is motion in curved lines with change in orientation.
Perhaps you should review Madhavi.
Gordon moans:
“Ergo, the far face line can never change places with the near face line at the halfway point as would be required for rotation about the centre.”
Who says? Just because you state it so?? You are the clown who can’t even understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation, and we should accept your statement above at face value? All three lines would rotate once per orbit, the line through the center of the moon rotating about the center of mass of the moon.
If the earth slowed the rotation on its own axis to one rotation per sun orbit, does it stop rotating on its own axis? No. It stops rotating on its own axis when it reaches zero rotations per orbit, i.e., when it’s translating, you fool.
In the video Gordon references, the moon is translating from 0:38 to 0:50. That is known as curvilinear translation, which Gordon has completely gotten wrong all the time for the last two years or more, indicating his complete ignorance of kinematic concepts.
“Then it becomes totally apparent that the three lines are moving in concentric circles.”
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Dr Emp T makes up definitions again without support, with no reference to support this stupidity whatsoever. They HAVE to do this to support their backwards ideas.
Let’s look at the following animation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Now for the moon on the right, select a point on the top of that moon and a point on the bottom of that moon. This moon is in a circular orbit, so the path of each point will be a circle. Both circles will have the same diameter, so they are congruent. And the paths of each of these circles will cross each other.
“TRANSLATION. It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Each of the moons in the animation are following a circular orbit. The moon on the right per every kinematic reference source you will find will tell you the object is translating, curvilinearly. With translation there in NO ROTATION of any line in the body. So the moon on the right per standard kinematics is orbiting, but there is no axial rotation of the moon about its own axis.
But our motley crew of ignorant uneducated flat earthers will tell you the complete opposite, without any support whatsoever. They make up their own definitions. They probably have a jingle for their pat sayings: ”
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.”
So the moon on the right has zero rotations about its own axis per orbit, and the moon on the left, has one axial rotation about its own axis, per orbit (you can count it. Your eyes are not deceiving you)
"So the moon on the right per standard kinematics is orbiting, but there is no axial rotation of the moon about its own axis."
SGW demonstrates once again that:
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit. Like the moon on the right, in SGW’s gif.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout. Like the moon on the left, in SGW’s gif.
Thanks, SGW.
"They make up their own definitions."
No, "rotation about an external axis" is not made up. See Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
Notice how he lies. He does not address the fact that his wacky backwards definitions fly in the face of standard kinematics. He just repeats the same mantra over and over, hoping that repetition of his lies will make them come true.
So pathetic.
I am not lying. An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, moves as per the moon on the left, in your gif. See Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
This liar realizes that the simplified depictions in the animation show a circular orbit for each the two moons, whereas in reality, the orbit is elliptical and does not meet the specifications for his “Figure 2b”. But that does not matter to him.
The moon on the right is translating. That is a simple kinematic fact. Translating objects do not rotate.
This is not a matter of seeing something from different perspectives. This is a matter of these flat earthers seeing something from a wrong perspective.
You get so upset when you’re proven wrong.
Just for the sake of completeness: I recall DREMT’s reply on November 11, 2020 at 6:03 AM
” No, he is saying that he understands what other people refer to as a rotation on its own axis at the same rate the Moon revolves around the Earth to be a lack of rotation on its own axis. ”
If I understand DREMT well then, when using a perfect 3D graphical simulation of Earth’s and Moon’s orbiting and rotational motions, and additionally allowing to freely modify Moon’s rotation frequence, we should see NO difference at all between
– Moon’s rotation frequence per second equal to 0 (no rotation at all)
and
– Moon’s rotation frequence per second equal to 1 / 2,360,622 (rotation synchronous with orbit)
OK, DREMT?
J.-P. D.
No, you do not understand me at all. The problem is that what “Spinners” consider to be “no [axial] rotation at all” is not what “Non-Spinners” consider to be “no [axial] rotation at all”. How can you not have got that yet!?
Let me make that clearer:
If you set up a simulation which allows you to modify the rate of axial rotation of the moon, then yes you will see a difference when you adjust that rate. Both sides would agree.
This isn’t the problem. The problem is that:
“Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit.
“Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
Hence:
“Spinners” see a “tidally-locked” moon as a moon that is rotating once on its own axis per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
“Non-Spinners” see a “tidally-locked” moon as a moon that is not rotating on its own axis, whilst orbiting.
“Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout which is wrong for the moon because the moon exhibits day/night cycles thus must be spinning and not non-spinning.
Day/night cycles on the moon prove the “spinners” are correct and the “non-spinners” wrong.
Note to readers…
Commenters on the ignore list:
Ball4
Nate
Good idea, DREMT. They have NOTHING to offer.
Probably bobdroege needs to be added to the list. He’s as bad as the other two.
I still hold out some hope for blob, though I would agree that he is almost as bad. He is very close to going on the list.
Will you wrap it up and tie it with a bow?
You would hate it, blob. You would no longer be able to get into long, pointless discussions with me where you do not listen to a word I say, get frustrated with me and eventually start hurling childish abuse.
DREMPTY,
It would save me from your incessant childish abuse.
You know you can quit it anytime, yet every post from you directed at me contains your childish abuse.
It’s time to man up and admit that you are wrong and don’t understand elementary school science.
What “abuse”!? Calling you “blob”!?
There is a more moderated blog that I post to, and that behavior would get you banned.
Fine, I will call you bob from now on. I didn’t realise it upset you so much.
bob is concerned about “blob”!!!
He conviently forgets all of the juvenile profanity he has used.
What a phony — a whiny phony!
It doesn’t upset me, it’s just childish.
Thanks for promising to post more maturely in the future.
If you want to have an adult conversation you might want to post under your real name as well.
“He conveniently forgets all of the juvenile profanity he has used.
What a phony a whiny phony!”
Says the poster who calls everyone who disagrees with him and actually knows physics idiots.
We all could stop with the constant insults, that would be an improvement.
Don’t push it, bob. You really are in no position to be lecturing others about maturity.
“Spinner Spinner chicken dinner!”
For instance.
DREMPT,
I am not lecturing, I am making a request.
I have admitted to getting down in the mud and wrestling with the pigs.
I am not claiming my behavior is above reproach.
I will do better if you, ClintR, Robertson, and Bill do better.
OK bob, continue to be a child, for all of our amusement. Fine with me.
bob, the use of “idiot” is not “name-calling”, or profanity. It is recognition of your life-style choice. You choose to reject reality. That makes you an idiot.
I support your freedom to make your own decisions.
ClintR,
You are an idiot if you believe that.
As I indicated bob, I believe in your freedom to be an idiot.
Just as I have the freedom to laugh at you.
As I indicated bob, I believe you have the freedom to choose to be an idiot.
Just as I have the freedom to laugh at you.
Remember ClintR, I am not laughing at you, I am laughing near you.
Creepy.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 13, 2020 at 8:31 AM
Note to readers…
Commenters on the ignore list:
Ball4
Nate
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team please stop trolling.
I’m not. Those commenters deserve their place on the list, for their total lack of intellectual honesty.
Are too!
P.s.: I, not unlike you, have a very narrow definition of trolling.
“Are too!”
Dee too.
ball4…”Day/night cycles on the moon prove the spinners are correct and the non-spinners wrong”.
Day/night cycles of the Moon have nothing to do with local rotation, they are due to the Moon seeing the Sun from different angles and positions due to the Moon’s orbital constraints.
DREMT
I apologise, but: you made NOTHING clearer.
By writing
” “Spinners” see a “tidally-locked” moon as a moon that is rotating once on its own axis per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
“Non-Spinners” see a “tidally-locked” moon as a moon that is not rotating on its own axis, whilst orbiting. ”
you merely repeat the same as always, that is, you hide the REAL difference I tried to explain.
You formally agree with this difference (fair enough of course), but you do not [want to] see the logical and technical consequence of agreeing.
Namely that any non-spinning moon behaves really different than if it was spinning at the same frequency as it orbits its primary.
*
And that is the reason why all toy examples fail: the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.
But this toy example is NO correct analogy to our Moon’s behavior, BECAUSE while the race horse is FIXED, our Moon isn’t.
*
” How can you not have got that yet!? ”
You really seem to think I wouldn’t understand such trivial thing as your “spinner” vs. “non-spinner” attitude, don’t you ? Oh oh oh.
Again: we stay in the blind-alley.
Because even if I was able to show you, in a perfect simulation taking everything into account – including Earth’s and Moon’s spin axis inclinations wrt to their orbits etc etc – the difference between
– what an observer on Earth sees when looking at the same point of our Moon in the case of synchronous spin
and
– what s/he sees when observing the point of the Moon when its synchronous spin has been switched off,
I’m afraid you simply would repeat your “spinner” vs. “non-spinner” sentence, while I would repeat ” You see? The Moon now VISIBLY behaves different! ”
Why, do you think, do all astronomers observe the motions of celestial bodies wrt fixed points?
J.-P. D.
“And that is the reason why all toy examples fail: the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
Wow. One of them finally admits it.
“But this toy example is NO correct analogy to our Moon’s behavior, BECAUSE while the race horse is FIXED, our Moon isn’t.”
The point of the analogy is, an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis, moves a certain way – with the same side of the object always oriented towards the center of the orbit.
“Because even if I was able to show you, in a perfect simulation taking everything into account – including Earth’s and Moon’s spin axis inclinations wrt to their orbits etc etc – the difference between
– what an observer on Earth sees when looking at the same point of our Moon in the case of synchronous spin and – what s/he sees when observing the point of the Moon when its synchronous spin has been switched off,
I’m afraid you simply would repeat your “spinner” vs. “non-spinner” sentence, while I would repeat ” You see? The Moon now VISIBLY behaves different!”
Wrong, I would acknowledge the difference. I just wouldn’t describe the motion where the moon is “tidally-locked” as being “synchronous rotation”. I would describe it as “the moon is not rotating on its own axis”. And the situation wherein you see no axial rotation of the moon I would describe as being “one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit”.
DREMT
” Wow. One of them finally admits it. ”
NO. I’m by no means ‘one of them’, because
– (1) I never contradicted at any time anybody writing that a race horse wouldn’t spin, and never replied to any commenter asking me;
– (2) I repeatedly expressed my disappointment about many commenters always trying to contradict you and others by using the same toy examples, because I considered such examples be inadequate. See the reason below!
*
” The point of the analogy is, an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis, moves a certain way – with the same side of the object always oriented towards the center of the orbit. ”
This, DREMT, is NO correct analogy AT ALL.
It sounds horribly trivial, but… you can’t consider the analogy between any example and the reality before you made the example sufficiently similar to the reality.
*
And BECAUSE you consider your trivial example of a satellite orbiting around Earth in a plane (like do by the way most of your contradictors in youtube ‘examples’ as well!), instead of considering the reality, i.e.
– (1) the inclination of the Moon’s orbit around Earth wrt the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun,
– (2) the inclination of Earth’s spin axis wrt the plane of its orbit around the Sun,
and
– (3) the inclination of Moon’s spin axis wrt the plane of its orbit around Earth,
you will ever fail, because the Moon’s behavior we experience is, together with
– (4,5) its orbiting an spin speed
and
– (6,7) Earth’s orbiting an spin speed
the result of all these points together.
And this is the reason because these endless discussions based on toy examples not only are boring, but fruitless as well.
J.-P. D.
Ooops! Typo, should read “And this is the reason why…”
Then why don’t you help? You and Norman are the only two on the “Spinner” side who acknowledge that the wooden horse, chalk circle, ball on a string etc are all not rotating on their own axes. We cannot advance this discussion whilst we have to waste our time with the others who all deny this, holding everyone back. Why do I never see you contradicting Ball4, or bobdroege, for example? Explain to them why the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, and you can experience what it is like trying to talk sense into them.
DREMT
” Why do I never see you contradicting Ball4, or bobdroege, for example? Explain to them why the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, and you can experience what it is like trying to talk sense into them. ”
I just explained this above!
I repeatedly expressed my disappointment about many commenters always trying to contradict you and others by using the same toy examples, because I considered such examples be inadequate.
Why should I explain them their arguments are wrong, when those they wrongly reply to are even more wrong ?????
J.-P. D.
DREMT, you didn’t understand Bindidon who was explaining to you: “And that is the reason why all toy examples fail…this toy example is NO correct analogy”
Bindidon is not agreeing with your failed mgr bolted wooded horse analogy at all, at least in what Bindidon has written so far.
“Why should I explain them their arguments are wrong…”
To help advance the discussion, because they will not listen to me. They might listen to you, or Norman. We can’t move on until all “Spinners” are on the same page as you two.
I’ll put this here.
Put the carousel pony on a track so that you can change the distance from the center of the carousel from zero to the edge of the carousel, just past the chalk circle.
When you move the carousel pony to the center of the carousel, it is still rotating, but now the axis it is rotating on and the axis it is revolving on become the same axis. It still spins, but since it is now revolving with a radius of zero, it is no longer revolving, just rotating.
Slide it back out, and now it is still rotating but also now revolving.
Same as the proof that a ball on a string is rotating, with an acknowledgement that if the ball on a string is not rotating in the same plane as the string, it is possible that the ball may not be rotating, tetherball players can attest to Eben’s example.
“Slide it back out, and now it is still rotating but also now revolving.”
No…slide it back out, and now it is revolving about the center of the carousel, and not rotating on its own axis.
“Same as the proof that a ball on a string is rotating”
It is a proof that an object rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, changes its orientation whilst it moves. It is a proof that rotation is rotation. It does not prove that an object that is rotating about an external axis is also automatically rotating on its own axis!
If an object both rotates about an external axis (revolves) and rotates on its own axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
Not if it’s rotating at the same rate that it is revolving, which is the case with the pony, the ball, the chalk circle, and the Moon.
If it was rotating on its own axis at the same rate it was revolving, either in the same direction as the revolution, or in the opposite direction to the revolution – you would see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
But you see all sides of the Moon from a position outside of the Moons orbit, therefore it is rotating on its axis.
And no, that’s not because it is orbiting.
Yes, it is because it is orbiting.
DREMT your pony only presents its one side to the center as it rotates once on its own axis per orbit of the mgr center.
bobd…”When you move the carousel pony to the center of the carousel, it is still rotating, but now the axis it is rotating on and the axis it is revolving on become the same axis”.
Explain how a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel can rotate about its COG.
Same with the jetliner example I have used. A jetliner circumnavigating the Earth at 35,000 feet will always have its wheels side to the Earth. If it rotated 360 degrees on its COG, in any direction, it would crash. Yet you will maintain it is rotating about its COG because it points in all directions of the compass during circumnavigation.
Explaining how a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel can rotate about its COG is easy, it is forced by the revolving mgr.
binny…
This is the Mother of all Red-Herring Arguments. Not one of the points you list is in any way related to a proof that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
1)the inclination of the Moons orbit around Earth wrt the plane of Earths orbit around the Sun,…absolutely noting to do with a local lunar rotation.
2)inclination of Earth’s spin axis wrt the solar orbital plane…nothing to do with local rotation.
3)the inclination of the Moon’s spin axis…wrt the lunar orbital plane ….there is no spin axis because the Moon does not spin on a local axis and you have not proved it does. Any axis wrt the lunar orbital plane is inferred to be perpendicular to that plane. The axis is imaginary and only for purposes of orientation.
(4,5) its orbiting an spin speed …nothing to do with a fictitious local lunar rotation.
(6,7) Earths orbiting an spin speed…nothing to do with a local lunar spin.
There are only two parameters involved in a lunar orbit:
1)The linear velocity of the Moon.
2)the sum of the opposing gravitation forces between Earth and Moon.
The fact that the same lunar side always points to the Earth is easily explained by those two parameters. There is no scientific proof of a rotational component on the Moon itself that would cause it to turn about a local axis.
The explanation is stupid simple. The Moon has only linear velocity and wants to move in a straight line. Earth’s gravitational field bends it slowly into an orbital path. That explains the near face always pointing inwardly right there and it also explains why the Moon points constantly in a different direction.
It is not rotating, it is sitting still wrt to a local angular velocity and being pulled into an orbit.
“..the Moon points constantly in a different direction. It is not rotating..”
Only in Gordon’s imagination, not in normal kinematics, anything that points constantly in a different direction is rotating, anything that points constantly in the same direction is not rotating.
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock.” [Nikola Tesla]
The ball on a string is not a model of the moon, but it is still rotating on its own axis. The ball cannot suddenly start rotating on its own axis by itself when the string is cut. It was already rotating on its own axis prior to the string being cut (Newton’s first law of motion)
DREMT
Some comments above, you wrote:
” We can’t move on until all “Spinners” are on the same page as you two. ”
Sorry, this imho makes few sense.
The only way to go out of this endless stay in the blind-alley is to backtrack many steps by leaving these fruitless discussions based on toy-like examples. Otherwise, you won’t be one step further even in 10 years.
And, as was 150 % predictable, you can see below that the most incompetent of all “Non spinners” still is far far away from following this path:
” If it spun locally even a small amount the near face would no longer point at the Earth. It is physically impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis and at the same time keep the same side pointed at the Earth.
You are having a great deal of difficulty with that fact. Take two coins and view them till you can see that. ”
As usual, Robertson has read no more than 5 % of what I wrote in our discussion, and is absolutely unable to leave his ridiculous coin egomania.
Slowly but surely, it gets a bit too boring to me.
*
I’ll look for a valuable simulator software for planetary motions.
The data for Earth and Moon is publicly available, of course! But to show from scratch what we need in it: that’s a hard, challenging and above all useless job, as its results very probably would be denied anyway.
J.-P. D.
“The ball on a string is not a model of the moon, but it is still rotating on its own axis.”
As Bindidon would put it:
“…the [ball on a string] of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the [orbit].”
“The ball cannot suddenly start rotating on its own axis by itself when the string is cut. It was already rotating on its own axis prior to the string being cut (Newton’s first law of motion)”
The ball has orbital angular momentum before the cut, it has spin angular momentum afterwards. Overall system angular momentum is conserved.
Gordon,
Do take care to read the whole post.
“Put the carousel pony on a track so that you can change the distance from the center of the carousel from zero to the edge of the carousel, just past the chalk circle.”
Bindidon, I’m afraid the only way past the simple analogies is for the “Spinners” to admit that they were wrong about them. They are unlikely to do this without the intervention of those “Spinners” who know better than the rest, such as Norman and yourself. I’d say about 80% – 90% of these discussions are about the simple analogies, in one way or another.
So, you can sit back and not help, and the discussions about the simple analogies will go on indefinitely, whilst you whinge about it. Or, you could actually help out, and try to persuade your fellow “Spinners” that they are wrong.
“The ball has orbital angular momentum before the cut, it has spin angular momentum afterwards.”
Dr Em T displays his ignorance regarding physics, as is usual.
An orbiting object has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum (if the object spins about its own axis). When the string is cut the orbital angular momentum immediately becomes linear angular momentum, causing the ball to fly off in the tangent direction at velocity v. Since the ball is also rotating about its own axis prior to the string being cut, the spin angular momentum causes the ball to keep spinning upon release. Both momentums are conserved.
Remember, the tension in the string cannot cause a torque on the ball causing it to spin. Objects do not start to spin on their own accord. (Newton’s first law of motion). It was already spinning prior to release.
If an orbiting object was only translating, it would not spin upon release from orbit. The orbital angular momentum of the object would become linear momentum.
You are SO stupid.
Only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved.
Thanks for confirming your stupidity.
A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, before the string is cut. The ball is simply orbiting a central point. Argue it out with Bindidon:
“…the [ball on a string] of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the [orbit].”
I don’t need to argue with idiots. You will never learn, because you were never taught physics. You make up your own definitions. You are just a ignorant troll, now on ignore.
OK, SGW.
binny…”Namely that any non-spinning moon behaves really different than if it was spinning at the same frequency as it orbits its primary”.
If it spun locally even a small amount the near face would no longer point at the Earth. It is physically impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis and at the same time keep the same side pointed at the Earth.
You are having a great deal of difficulty with that fact. Take two coins and view them till you can see that.
It really is physically possible for the Moon to rotate once about a local axis and at the same time keep the same side pointed at the Earth all through the orbit Gordon. That is what is observed, it is what your coin does, and just like DREMT’s pony.
Now would be an ideal time for you to intervene in the discussion, Bindidon. After all, as you said:
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
Of course DREMT has to leave out Bindidon explaining that is the reason for failure: “And that is the reason why all toy examples fail:”
https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
The above motion is what’s known in kinematics as “general plane motion” of a rigid body.
As has been noted in multiple kinematic reference sources:
“Rigid motion can be decomposed into the translation of an arbitrary point, followed by a rotation about the point.”
[https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
It can be, but should it be? Not in the case of the chalk circle, wooden horse or ball on a string, which are all examples of objects rotating about an external axis, and not about their own centers of mass.
skeptic…”https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
The above motion is whats known in kinematics as general plane motion of a rigid body”.
***
Plane motion of a rigid body is NOT rotation about an external axis and NOT rectilinear/curvilinear motion. The motion in your example is rotation about an external axis hence NOT plane motion.
It’s not clear, however, whether the action is that of a ball on an elastic string or a body orbiting another body. The orbital path is eccentric, however. Note the lines drawn on the outside edge of the rotating object, how it is always perpendicular to the connecting line from the stationary object.
At least, it is till it nears the stationary object, therefore the connecting line is not a radial line. Don’t know what it meant to be. They have created the motion so a line within the rotating body varies with the longer connector, which strikes me as being wrong.
In the case of an orbiting body with an elliptical orbit, the line outside the rotating body would always be tangential to the orbital path, which it is in your example. The short line perpendicular to it inside the rotating body should be a line bisecting the angle created by drawing lines from each focal point to the orbiting body, hence not pointing toward the centre of the stationary body.
Rigid motion can be decomposed into the translation of an arbitrary point, followed by a rotation about the point.
They are clearly not talking here about a rigid body orbiting around an external axis. The quote is related to a rigid body undergoing plane motion from point A to point B and rotating about a point within the body.
Is SGW still believing in the things he can find on the Web?
He’s so confused.
The simple analogy of a ball on a string has him confused.
Gordon,
You need to read Dr. Madhavi’s text:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
According to Madhavi, there are 3 types of plane motion:
1. Translation
2. Rotation about a fixed axis.
3. General Plane Motion
The following object does not meet the requirements for 1. or 2., so it is considered general plane motion.
https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
The chalk circle, wooden horse or ball on a string are all examples of objects rotating about an external axis, and not about their own centers of mass. Presumably SGW agrees, since it is textbook kinematics. Right, SGW?
SFW says: “The following object does not meet the requirements for 1. or 2., so it is considered general plane motion.”
SGW, orbital motion is clearly described by combining the works of Galileo, Newton, and Kepler. Once you learn what orbital motion is, then you will know Moon is only orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
When it came to Moon, Cassini was a fraud. You are choosing Cassini over Galileo, Newton, and Kepler.
Clint,
If the earth were to start slowing the rotation about its own axis, at what value would it stop rotating on its own axis. Give me a number.
Zero axial rotations per orbit. That would be at the point that the same face of the Earth always pointed towards the sun.
And when you come back, Clint, I want to go to the following Youtube post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q
Let’s pretend the moon in this animation is actually the earth that has slowed its rotation as it orbits the sun in the middle. Watch from 0:30 to 0:49 and tell me how many time this “earth” rotates on its own axis for one orbit around the “sun”, and tell me how you came up with that number.
Next, watch from 0:55 to 1:19 and tell me how many times this “earth” rotates on its own axis for one orbit around the “sun”, and how you came up with the answer.
Finally, watch from 0:05 to 0:25 and tell me how many times this “earth” rotates on its own axis for one orbit around the sun, and how you came up with the answer.
(And we will assume the orbit is elliptical, even though the animation shows it as a circle)
How can you still not know?
Since ClintR is a moron and can’t answer, I’ll provide the answers for him.
From 0:30 to 0:49, this “earth” rotates 8 times on its own axis per orbit. You count the rotations wrt the inertial reference frame.
From 0:55 to 1:19, this earth rotates one time on its own axis per orbit. You can easily count its one rotation wrt the inertial reference frame.
From 0:05 to 0:25, this “earth” does has zero rotations on its own axis per orbit. You can clearly see it does not rotate wrt the inertial reference frame. This movement is also known as curvilinear translation. This would also agree with Dr. Madhavi, who stated, “A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
All three of the above movements were consistently counted in the same manner wrt the inertial reference frame. Yet our our cult flat earther non-spinners insist that one rotation per orbit means zero rotations per orbit. And who knows how they would describe the translating earth (0:05to 0:25) Perhaps imaginary numbers, to go along with their imaginary physics with their imaginary definitions?
7, 0, then -1.
“-1” means one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit.
This is all based on the concept that an orbit (without axial rotation) is a rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis, keeps the same face always pointed towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. Axial rotation is then counted as separate from this motion. So, in counting to 7, you are just looking at the number of times the same color side is returned to the position where it is facing the center of the orbit.
This remains true regardless of reference frame.
I’ll ignore my ignore for just a moment and finish this tangent. Because you are truly unteachable.
So we must have a sense or foreknowledge that an object is going to slow down all the way to the point where it faces the center of orbit all the time (orbit without axial rotation) to implement your “concept”
Our earth is slowing down. When do we subtract this 1 rotation per orbit? What if the earth for some physical reason stops slowing its rotating at two rotations about its own axis per orbit? And how are we counting the earth’s current rotation? Is it actually rotating 365.25 times on its own axis? Or 364.25? Enquiring minds want to know.
I did the two coin thing and it worked fine. I was able to rotate the outer coin 1 time on its own axis per orbit with the same face pointing towards the center of orbit.
I clicked the location! Somehow the above post did not post correctly.
I did the two coin thing and it worked fine. I was able to rotate the outer coin 1 time on its own axis per orbit with the same face pointing towards the center of orbit.
Never mind. Two many locations with a “coin” search. The point is, Gordon, that your two coin thing does not disprove anything. It proves our point.
“So we must have a sense or foreknowledge that an object is going to slow down all the way to the point where it faces the center of orbit all the time (orbit without axial rotation) to implement your “concept””
No idea what you are talking about.
“And how are we counting the earth’s current rotation? Is it actually rotating 365.25 times on its own axis? Or 364.25? Enquiring minds want to know.”
SGW, the Earth rotates 365.25 times on its own axis. You guys see it as rotating 366.25 times on its own axis. Are you not even aware of that?
“SGW, the Earth rotates 365.25 times on its own axis. You guys see it as rotating 366.25 times on its own axis. Are you not even aware of that?”
That idea is discussed and falsified here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-554411
Yes, SGW, counting the number of axial rotations per orbit as you did for your values of 8, 1, and 0 for that video would give you a result of 366.25 rotations for the Earth in one orbit.
But you don’t have to believe me…Google “sidereal day”. There are 366.25 sidereal days in a year.
“No idea what you are talking about”
That’s because your system makes no sense. I would have flunked my kinematics class because I would constantly get the wrong answers since I would be using an inertial reference frame, and terms such as “translation” lose their meaning.
What you are proposing is taught NOWHERE in any physics or kinematics class in the world. And only you guys understand. Not buying it.
Hasta la vista.
OK, SGW. Rotation about an external axis still exists though, even in your kinematics class.
“SGW, the Earth rotates 365.25 times on its own axis. You guys see it as rotating 366.25 times on its own axis. ”
Indeed sidereal rotation is 366.25 wrt the stars is how Astronomy sees it.
The way you guys see it is 365.25 on its own axis, and once around the orbit axis, ie one normal to the ecliptic.
But the single rotation around the ecliptic normal, results in the Earth’s N. pole following a 23.5 degree circle around the N. star, Polaris.
It obviously does not do that.
Once again, your model fails to fit the observable facts.
Your model is wrong.
SGW, just before you go, don’t forget I said:
“…the Earth rotates 365.25 times on its own axis.”
That’s the way I see it. Don’t let any obsessive stalker of mine try to persuade you otherwise.
DREMT “dont let any obsessive stalker of mine,
who I’m not supposed to respond to, but I do quite often when I feel like it.
But I dont feel like it right now, because he has demolished my model of the Earth’s rotation and I HAVE NO ANSWERS.”
#2
SGW, just before you go, don’t forget I said:
“…the Earth rotates 365.25 times on its own axis.”
That’s the way I see it. Don’t let any obsessive stalker of mine try to persuade you otherwise.
Lol. Think what you want. There is never any point talking to you.
Whoops. Posted that last message in the wrong place. It was meant for bob.
“the Earth rotates 365.25 times on its own axis.
Thats the way I see it. ”
Yes that is absolutely clear. But it is still wrong.
WRT the stars it rotates 366.25 times per orbit, on its own axis. WRT the Sun it rotates 365.25 times per orbit.
The difference YOU claim is due to the rotation of the Earth that is ‘intrinsic’ to orbiting the sun.
THE PROBLEM, is this so-called rotation around the sun is a rotation around an axis NORMAL to the ecliptic.
Such a rotation around this axis must move the SPIN AXIS of Earth away from Polaris. But this does not happen.
That model is wrong.
#2
Whoops. Posted that last message in the wrong place. It was meant for bob.
Nate says:
THE PROBLEM, is this so-called rotation around the sun is a rotation around an axis NORMAL to the ecliptic.
Such a rotation around this axis must move the SPIN AXIS of Earth away from Polaris. But this does not happen.
That model is wrong.
—————————————
No you are confused again exactly like you are constantly confused.
There are 365.25 spins on the earth’s spin axis and one on the orbital axis. That looks like 366.25 spins from space without respect to any axis.
You just keep trying to insist the axis is in the center of the earth.
But it would only be there is you could snap the string of gravity. Then the earth would go off spinning 366.25 times per year on its own axis.
Instead if the earth escaped solar orbit the extra rotation would disappear through distance from the sun and a much longer orbit period and the continuing influence of gravity/string eventually approaching 365.25 spins per year as the r value became larger with the v and m values remaining the same.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 12, 2020 at 5:56 PM
snapeOn the scientific side, just to show two examples,
https://tinyurl.com/Earth-Moon-spin
The commentor in this video not only sounds like a blithering idiot, he is a blithering idiot. He has drawn a line through the centre of the Moon and notes that it turns through 360 degrees as it completes one orbit. So, the idiot claims that proves the Moon is rotating on its axis.
What the goof needs to do is draw two more lines parallel to that line: one on the near face and one on the far face. Then it becomes totally apparent that the three lines are moving in concentric circles. Ergo, the far face line can never change places with the near face line at the halfway point as would be required for rotation about the centre.
And why are you so thick you cannot see that?
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Fordone Gordon, tidal locking is the reason the moon always presents the same face to the earth. Implicit within all your attempts to show the contrary is the fact that the orbiting satellite spins about its axis once per orbit, you just can’t visualize it properly with you coins, horses on a merry-go-round or ball on a string because the moon spins and orbits freely in space commanded by the pull of earth’s gravity.
The magnetic needle on an analog compass orbiting a central point is a better representation of a tidally locked planet-satellite system. The magnetic needle sits on a fine point that is nearly frictionless so it rotates freely towards magnetic north as the compass orbits the central point.
Snape, “tidal locking” is the nonsense they made up because they knew it was ridiculous to claim Moon was rotating about its axis, when we can clearly see it is not. So they made up “tidal locking” to confuse the issue, and fool idiots like you.
I think you were the one that supplied the link for this: “What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
I’m going to debunk that nonsense in a few days. I’m giving rats a chance to desert their sinking ship. Do you still cling to the “tidal locking” nonsense, or do you want to save yourself?
ClintR,
Bring it on, I am sure it will be good for a few laughs.
That’s why I will do it. We greatly enjoy watching you idiots wrap yourself around your axles trying to distort and pervert reality.
I can make it so simple a high school kid can understand. So all of your distorting and perverting will be that much more enjoyable.
Coming soon, to a blog near you.
But can you make it simple enough that you will understand it?
But not you, bob. Idiots can’t understand physics, or reality. Your role is to entertain us.
And you’re doing a good job.
Then entertain you I will, If I can’t teach you any physics.
You are looking up at idiot on the intelligence scale.
Good job.
bob,
As you cannot teach anybody something you dont understand, I guess providing entertainment with your buffoonery might suit you.
I doubt you have any more ability at being intentionally entertaining than your ability to comprehend reality. Give it a try. At least I can laugh your unintentional buffoonery.
Swenson,
You don’t know a hypothesis or a theory from a hole in the ground, even if someone hit you on the head with it.
Hypothesis: Swenson doesn’t know physics.
Evidence: Read his posts.
You know he’s an expert on Quantum Electrodynamics cause he said so.
You are not fooling anyone.
bob,
You cant help making irrelevant and unsupported assertions, desperately hoping people will accept them as fact.
Buffoonery. Unintentional perhaps, but laugh inducing nonetheless!
For example, try unmixing your mixed metaphor. Your grasp of English might be better than your grasp of physics, but youre not being very convincing so far.
I wont ask to provide a testable GHE hypothesis. Even you wouldnt be so silly as to attempt that impossible task, would you? Carry on capering.
Swenson,
Previously you were asking for a greenhouse gas hypothesis and you were provided one.
Now you don’t want one.
Did you spit your binky?
ClintR,
Regarding your “debunking”, make sure you “cc” NASA and all the scientific and physics societies. A press conference would be ideal as well.
I am sure the National Enquirer will be interested in publishing your article.
Tonto (ClintR), you do realize that “debunking” a physical truth involves resorting to science and that’s way above your pay grade. Your cohorts only want you to be a court jester and provide entertainment, nothing more. Now dance bisch!
Snape, isn’t it about time for you to adopt a new name?
Maybe if you come back as a new person, you can hide how stupid you are. It hasn’t worked for you before, but who knows, maybe next time….
Tonto (ClintR), see above and DANCE!
Tonto (ClintR), I am setting up an alert on Google Scholar for the phrase “Tidal Locking debunked” so I don’t miss your breakthrough proof.
TM,
Dont be more of a witless alarmist donkey than you have to be. You have no intention of following through on your bizarre claim, have you?
Maybe you could produce a copy of the Global Warming Theory? Only joking, of course. You cant find any such thing, so you just keep trolling.
Make a note. Write it down. Check it twice. Ho ho ho, dimwitted pretender.
Tonto (ClintR) how’s that debunking proof coming? Here’s more ammo for your work.
https://tinyurl.com/moon-tidal-lock
hehe.
Snape, I’m going to debunk that “tidal locking” nonsense in a few days. I’m giving rats a chance to desert their sinking ship. Do you still cling to the “tidal locking” nonsense?
If so, I hope you are a good swimmer.
snape…”Implicit within all your attempts to show the contrary is the fact that the orbiting satellite spins about its axis once per orbit, you just cant visualize it properly with you coins, horses on a merry-go-round or ball on a string because the moon spins and orbits freely in space commanded by the pull of earths gravity”.
You should stick to thought experiments, at least yours can be comical. How the heck does the Moon spin ‘commanded’ by Earth’s gravity? Gravity always pulls in the near face direction so when does the near face break away to spin?
Next one to take a trip to the moon don’t forget to bring your Foucault pendulum, it was used on Earth to prove it spins on its axes it will prove the Moon does too, although I’m sure when you get back the flat mooners will have concocted a new word salad why it doesn’t.
Read the second Tesla paper.
Eben, the pendulum is not able to distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating about an axis”. So you are indicating you don’t know the difference either.
The wooden horse mounted to the edge of a rotating platform is “orbiting”, not “rotating about is axis”. Until you learn the difference in the two motions, you will never understand the moon issue.
Has anybody in here even seen a Foucault pendulum in action ?
I saw the original one that proved the Earth spins in St Isaac’s cathedral in Russia in 1984, it has been removed since.
In the night of April 11-12, 1931 the first demonstration of Foucault’s pendulum took place
The experiment was performed in St. Isaac’s Cathedral (where an antireligious museum was located at the time). About seven thousand people gathered for the demonstration.
Afterwards the Foucault’s pendulum had long been a part of the exposition. It was removed in 1986 and now is stored in the cellars of the cathedral.
But do you understand how the pendulum works? It cannot tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about an axis”. The pendulum is basically like an idiot, in that endeavor.
Eben
Good idea to show this here. For the deniers and ignorants who call others ‘idiots’ I add
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-does-foucaults-pendulum-prove-earth-rotates-180968024/
The pendulum’s rotation of course has nothing to do with orbiting.
Foucault was able not only to show Earth’s spin, but also to predict how long it would take for his pendulum to achieve a complete turn at Paris’ latitude.
J.-P. D.
JD, can you debunk the “tidal locking” nonsense? If not, why not? You pretend to understand gravity and orbital motion. Where’s your debunk of “tidal locking”?
Better get off the sinking ship, fast!
The end of the nonsense is coming soon….
Anybody can see here how the Foucault’s pendulum works:
https://www.dlr.de/schoollab/Portaldata/24/Resources/dokumente/nz/1_Experimentbeschreibung_Erdrotation_WEB.pdf
OK, it’s in German, but even the dumbest, English-fixated Contrarians discrediting, denigrating, denying all stuff they don’t understand, should nonetheless be able to use a translator, e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/y4ctxnkw
J.-P. D.
JD, the Foucault’s pendulum can NOT tell the difference between orbital motion and rotating about an axis.
Surely you’re not so stupid you believe the pendulum can “prove” Moon has axial rotation.
Are you really that stupid?
Yeah, Foucault’s pendulum can’t tell the difference between your words.
It can only tell if it’s rotating.
Yes silly snowflake Svante, we already know you’re stupid.
But your frequent confirmations don’t hurt anything, and probably help newcomers.
Good job.
Don’t tell me, tell Foucault.
“It can only tell if it’s rotating.”
…about some axis.
The best is too look at a dynamic image showing the pendulum’s behavior at different latitudes:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/FoucaultMultiAnima.gif
If you place the pendulum at one of the Poles, the period of the pendulum’s path movement is equal to that of Earth’s rotation about its axis.
If you place it at the Equator, there is no path movement.
Anywhere else, the period is related to the sine of the latitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Of course, I know! For the stubborn Pseudoskeptics, Wikipedia is a valuable source if AND ONLY if it tells what they understand and therefore can accept.
Otherwise, it is always a bad source.
Simple-minded insults a la ‘ You are an idiot! ‘ or ‘ Are you that stupid? ‘ won’t help here.
Simply try to read and understand instead.
J.-P. D.
Well, for one thing , the offset movement of the pendulum matches the length of the day, not the length of the year,
except when you live on the Bizzaro planet which is where the flat Mooners come from.
The pendulum has one rotation for the orbit and 365.25 for the days in a year.
The one orbit rotation is enough to exactly make up one orbit for every single planet. Whereas 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the other rotations will have a decimal point behind the integer number of number of revolutions.
this factor is pretty solid evidence that the moon rotates around the cog of the earth and common barycenter. The earth only rotates around the common barycenter.
Calling it synchronous rotation is redundant. Since the spinners cannot come up with one thing at all that makes it necessary to consider the moon rotating on its own axis, making an argument about it probably has as much redeeming value as masturbating your egos.
The spinners can come up with one thing that makes it necessary to consider the moon rotating on its own axis:
Earth’s moon has day/night cycles.
Bill,
Do you understand that the latitude of the Foucault pendulum determines how fast it rotates?
The Moon rotating on its own axis is an observation.
By the “Spinner” logic, every single object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, because the Earth is spinning.
Seriously…if the “Spinners” think the wooden horse and the chalk circle are rotating on their own axes just because the merry-go-round is rotating, then follow the logic…that means they must believe every single object on Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because the planet is spinning.
Yes,
Take a long exposure photo at night.
As if that in any way addresses what I just said!
What part of yes do you not understand?
Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis because it is connected to the Earth which is spinning on its own axis.
That was the admission we’ve been waiting for. EVERYTHING is spinning to the spinners. That’s the only way they can claim Moon is rotating about its axis. EVERYTHING is rotating about its axis!
I think we can consider that a concession on their part. Gave over.
I’ll still get my debunk of “tidal locking” out in a few days, just for a little overkill.
Absolutely, ClintR. Game over!
“Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis because it is connected to the Earth which is spinning on its own axis.”
🤣
DREM and ClintR,
Anyone who has a background in observational astronomy would be aware that every object on Earth is rotating around an axis that is parallel to the rotational axis of the earth.
e.g. see the following –
https://tinyurl.com/y3azfn4f
Additionally this information is relevant, from
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_mount
“Anequatorial mountis a mount for instruments that compensates for theEarth’s rotationby having one rotational axis parallel to the Earth’s axis of rotation.”
If you doubt this then join your local amateur astronomical society. I guarantee you will learn something.
So DREM I agree with you on one point, The game is definitely over. 😀😃😄😆🤣🙂😂
“Seriously…if the ‘Spinners’ think the wooden horse and the chalk circle are rotating on their own axes just because the merry-go-round is rotating, then follow the logic…that means they must believe every single object on Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because the planet is spinning.”
OMG.
This particular argument has already been lost, when you realized that it is only INDEPENDENT rotation on their own axes that is forbidden.
I guess it was yet another thing quietly added to the Ignore List.
They really are pathetic. MikeR, yes, the Earth is rotating on its own axis. Therefore every object on Earth is rotating about that axis. What every object on Earth is not>/b> doing, is rotating on its own axis. Yet here is what bob said:
“Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis because it is connected to the Earth which is spinning on its own axis.”
Why don’t you idiots get with Bindidon and Norman and finally acknowledge that the chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are all not rotating on their own axes!
For crying out loud…
DREMT,
for crying out loud, you have already lost the argument.
How about some logic instead of appeals to incredulity?
The Earth rotates on its own axis, so every object on Earth is rotating about that axis.
It is not a correct statement to say that every object on Earth is rotating about its own center of mass.
You are wrong, bob. Laughably so.
DREMT,
Keep repeating the argument you lost a long time ago.
Actually I didn’t say everything rotates around an axis through its center of mass.
I only said it rotates.
You said: “Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis“.
DREMT,
What are you bitching about, that I didn’t requote myself exactly?
You are getting tiresome and wrong.
Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.
“Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.”
Just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis!?
DREMPT,
Yes, did you look at Mike’s photo?
“Yes”
Wow. You have to be the most delusional person I have ever spoken to in my life.
“…did you look at Mike’s photo”.
Yes.
DREMT,
And it proves that whoever took that picture is rotating on its axis.
What part of that do you not understand?
And I am delusional?
You have lost the argument again, by claiming I am delusional instead of addressing the arguments.
Let’s move on.
“And it proves that whoever took that picture is rotating on its axis.”
No it doesn’t. The Earth is rotating on its own axis, and orbiting the Earth/sun barycenter.
“Let’s move on”
I bet you want to move on! Lol.
DREMPT,
It proves that the camera that took that picture is rotating on its axis.
You lost the argument, give it up.
“It proves that the camera that took that picture is rotating on its axis.”
No, bob. It shows that the camera is on planet Earth, which is rotating on its own axis, and orbiting the Earth/sun barycenter.
DREMT,
The camera does not show that the Earth is rotating around the Sun Earth barycenter.
OK, bob.
Meanwhile, every object on the planet is not rotating about its own center of mass just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis.
DREMT,
I also didn’t say anything on earth was rotating around its center of mass.
It’s just rotating around an axis through the body, as proved a thousand times.
You’ve proven that every object on the planet is rotating about an axis going through its body!?
You appear to have gone completely mad.
The army of the living dead led by DREM (or is it the living army of the brain dead?) have resurrected their favourite zombie argument via rigid bodies*. This time 3D with an approximately spherical earth this time. This of course has all been done to death months ago.
From July’s discussions –
https://i.postimg.cc/7qPK6zTp/Pizza-Gate.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/PfG6rFm4/Tesla3.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/YrJFWvqN/Moon-Earth.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/Z57x0HVs/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
p.s. as these zombies are incredibly persistent I again challenge the Zombie In Chief to a duel**. I intend to make sure that I will use a silver bullet.
* of course non of these discussions are not particularly relevant anyway as the earh/ moon system is clearly not a single rigid body.
** http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-538507
1 have tied myself in nots.
There should not be a not in “not particularly relevant ” in the above!
Wouldnt it be great if the TEAM could offer up some proof that objects on the Earth are not rotating about their own axes?
Thus far all they offer is protestations that it is ridiculous.
Not much of a proof.
Recall BDGWX showed that the shattered rotating record pieces are rotating on their own axes.
And DREMT claimed that it was impossible for them to have been rotating on their own axes BEFORE the shattering, because it was IMPOSSIBLE.
But that was wrong. Only INDEPENDENT rotation of the pieces was impossible.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549915
Now DREMT has forgotten all about it. Thats how it goes with DREMT.
MikeR, every object on the planet is not rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis.
You people are insane.
Your gifs are all examples of objects rotating about an external axis, and not about their own centers of mass.
With regard to the rotation about the centre of mass for points contained on the surface of a rigid body.
As these points are part of a continuous body then clearly then referring to a discrete centre of mass is not that appropriate. However if necesary, it could be treated via calculus with area elements that approach zero area (see derivations of moments of inertia).
I know from previous experience that calculus is well beyond the capabilities of the zombies. Even balancing equations was a bridge too far for the brain dead.
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.” – Bindidon.
Go and argue the point with Bindidon.
DREMT,
“You appear to have gone completely mad.”
Yes and the Moon only appears to be rotating.
Take 2 naproxen and call me when you stop seeing visions.
bob said:
“Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis because it is connected to the Earth which is spinning on its own axis.”
and even went on to state:
“Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.”
Thank you for the chuckles.
DREM, I agree with Bindidon of course
The race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin with respect to the carousel.
It spins with respect to the external environment. I am sure Bindidon would agree with that, as any sane person would.
Do not twist Bindidon’s words, MikeR. He won’t like it!
Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.
As a camera photographing the night sky anywhere on earth would verify ( the axis being through the centre of the lens).
It is also verified by the arcs the sun takes from East to West for an observer for every spot on Earth.
This stuff has been known for centuries. News must travel slowly in some parts.
DREM.
Yes, I will let Bindidon speak for himself with regard to the context.
I regard him as sane.
On that note, do you think the horse is not rotating with respect to the external environment?
Your delusion has reached its peak.
“On that note, do you think the horse is not rotating with respect to the external environment?”
The horse is indeed rotating…but not on its own axis. With respect to the external environment, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-553126
I wonder how many of them are prepared to go on record as stating that every object on Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because Earth is rotating on its own axis!?
We have bobdroege and MikeR prepared to debase themselves so far. Anybody else?
DREM,
You should apply for a grant from a scientific organisation to find a location anywhere on Earth where it is impossible to take photographs of star trails ( preferably at night).
Re your obsession with merry-go-rounds.
My inner ear also tells me that I rotate on my axis when I orbit on a spinning device that is faster than a merry go around, at a theme park.
DREM you should try this ride.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_(ride)
I have, and it provided a nauseatingly convincing explanation of axial rotation while orbiting.
You’ve had your say, MikeR. Let somebody else choose if they also want to make a fool of themselves.
DREM,
Did you follow up on my suggestion in contacting your local amateur astronomical group as they can explain how an equatorial telescope mount works?
Additionally they often have, on cloudy nights, meetings where they have stand up comedians for entertainment.
With your non rotating moon theory you could keep them in stitches. Don’t go on after the flat earth society comics as they can be a hard act to follow. However maybe a combined performance could work ?
OK, MikeR.
The Moon issue is now over. The idiots believe Moon is rotating about its axis because EVERYTHING is rotating about its axis. They define things to match their beliefs. That ain’t science.
Very soon the debunk of the “tidal locking” nonsense will be published, on this very blog. The idiots will have nothing to cling to. Moon is not rotating about its axis, and likely never has.
Yeah, it’s over.
You can’t debunk observations, if they are correct and carefully made. Which is the case here.
bob said:
“Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis because it is connected to the Earth which is spinning on its own axis.”
and even went on to state:
“Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.”
You lost the argument when you said that.
DREMT,
Those are observations, therefore correct.
Find something else to argue about, you lost this one.
“Those are observations, therefore correct.”
😂
DREM,
Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.
You could easily disprove this argument* by locating one place on Earth, where it is impossible to photograph star trails using a camera that is affixed to the ground.
These trails demonstrate that the camera is rotating around an axis through the centre of the lens, at a rate of one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes.
So DREM let’s see if you can locate such a place**. If you cannot then it is just another indication of the total b.s. you continually sprout.
* the alternative argument that the earth is not rotating and the universe is rotating about the camera is far fetched, but you could try it. It is about as realistic as the moon/earth system being part a rigid body***.
**proviso the night sky needs to be visible. The camera needs to above the surface of the earth and not inside an enclosed space.
*** reminder this argument is moot when it comes to the moon’s rotation.
MikeR, star trails do not prove that everything on the planet is rotating on its own axis. I already had this discussion with bob. You are completely out of your mind.
“The moon does not really have any Poles”
DREMT lost the argument, for the 47th time, when he said that.
Yeah, that’s the way to win an argument!
“You are completely out of your mind.”
Here is how to have an argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM
I would love to hear DREM’s explanation as to how an equatorial telescope mount works, if it doesn’t involve rotation around an axis through the mount.
DREM let it rip.
Bob, I enjoyed the SNL skit you posted.
DREM’s similar approach to an argument is a good match to his knowledge of physics and astronomy.
Nate,
DREM – The moon does not really have any Poles
Maybe DREMT meant polls instead of Poles, as in https://deadline.com/2020/11/donald-trump-tweet-censored-poles-1234608879/,
He could be right though, but I am not sure if anyone of Polish extraction currently resides on the Moon. Perhaps somebody from the Apollo program had Polish heritage?
As for the 47 losses, is that for this month alone or over the past two years?
DREM usually loses with a whimper and then rapidly resurrects the zombie arguments. It is like a zombie apocalypse version of “whack a mole”. Makes it very hard to keep score.
“The Moon issue is now over. The idiots believe Moon is rotating about its axis because EVERYTHING is rotating about its axis”
Yes, they have lost the plot completely.
MikeR says:
These trails demonstrate that the camera is rotating around an axis through the centre of the lens, at a rate of one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes.
————————-
That is incorrect. You draw your wrong conclusion from not being able to measure the movement of earth in its own orbit.
All the particles of earth are in curvilinear translation because of the earth having multiple axes. 365.25 rotations per year on its internal axis and one rotation around the sun on an axis about 23 degrees different than the internal axis.
As shown in Madhavi Figure 2(a). the moon however is in pure rotation figure 2(b)
bill, the main point here is that MikeR wrote (agreeing with bob):
"Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis."
The first part of that statement is true. The Earth is rotating on its own axis, hence everything on Earth is rotating about that axis. That explains the star trails, and the need for equatorial mounts, etc.
The second part of that statement is false. Everything on Earth is not rotating on its own axis, as well. MikeR says he considers Bindidon to be sane – so he should listen to him, if he’s not going to listen to me. As Bindidon said:
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
He is saying exactly the same thing I am saying about objects on the Earth. The wooden horse is like an object on the Earth (carousel). The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis ("does NOT spin"), but it is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel/Earth ("solely turns around the center of the carrousel").
If the wooden horse were rotating about both the center of the carousel and on its own axis, you would see all sides of the horse from the center of the carousel.
bill 11:14am: Earth “:As shown in Madhavi Figure 2(a)” where the plate is NOT rotating about its own axis, plate 2(a) is only in pure translation, yet bill writes Earth is rotating on its internal axis and incorrectly compares that motion to the plate in 2(a).
Then bill claims: “the moon however is in pure rotation figure 2(b)” where DREMT and ClintR claim the moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. These bozos can’t write their stories consistently because they do not know about what they are commenting.
If the wooden horse were rotating about both the center of the carousel and on its own axis more or less than once per rev., then you would see all sides of the horse from the center of the carousel. The wooden horse is forced into rotating exactly once per rev. on its own axis like the plate in Madhavi 2(b).
Ok Bill and DREM,
If either of you can explain how a polar aligned equatorial mount works without rotation about the polar axis this would be an amazing achievement.
Here is an example for you to work on.
https://astrobackyard.com/sky-watcher-star-adventurer-pro-review/
This is your challenge. If you choose to accept this challenge then I might show some respect. If you don’t then you are just both b.s. artists.
* a camera attached to this mount will show star trails if the polar axis is not rotating. If the polar axis is rotating in the appropriate direction the stars will appear to be stationary.
“…without rotation about the polar axis…”
MikeR, nobody is arguing that the Earth is not rotating on its own axis. That means everything on Earth is rotating about that axis. Hence the need for an equatorial mount.
My goodness you guys are hopeless. Of course the telescope is rotating around the polar axis of the mount!
This axis is parallel to the rotational axis of the earth! That is the whole point of aligning the polar axis accurately to the North or South celestial poles ( see article above, which you either didn’t bother reading or just did not understand ).
DREM stop dreaming and go and get a telescope and learn some astronomy.
Yes MikeR, the telescope mount rotates on its own axis. Which does not mean that every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating.
MikeR says:
My goodness you guys are hopeless. Of course the telescope is rotating around the polar axis of the mount!
—————————
You are just confused MikeR. A telescope mounted at the equator parallel to the earth’s spin axis isn’t spinning on its own axis. Its spinning around the earth’s polar axis.
Similarly a telescope mounted on moon’s equator pointed perpendicular to the eliptic plane will be rotating around the earth’s center of gravity parallel to an axis through that point, since the moon has no spin on its axis.
You are just confused because your eyesight isn’t sharp enough to detect that the telescope is orbiting rather than spinning on its axis. With good enough eyesight you would see the star tracks weaving in an amplitude based upon the radius of the earth. That should send you a big clue about what is really happening.
DREM -“Yes MikeR, the telescope mount rotates on its own axis. Which does not mean that every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating”
Good to see we are making progress as a camera attached to such a mount (just for simplicity’s sake the camera is pointing to the celestial pole*) will rotate on an axis through the centre of the lens.
DREM Is there somewhere on Earth** where it is impossible to use an equatorial mount to prevent star trails by rotating a camera (and/or telescope) that is affixed to the properly aligned mount?
If you can’t locate such a place then once again your statement above is just more bovine excrement.
* it also will rotate if it is pointing at an angle to the celestial pole but this will obviously be too confusing for DREM, so let’s stick with the simplest case.
**usual proviso the night sky needs to be visible. The camera needs to above the surface of the earth or not under water and not inside an enclosed space.
Bill – “With good enough eyesight you would see the star tracks weaving in an amplitude based upon the radius of the earth. That should send you a big clue about what is really happening.”
WTF. The only waviness in star trails would be due to “Periodic Error * ” in the motor driving the polar axis of the telescope mount. Anyway if you are getting star trails then , either the motor is not working, or it has been set to drive the telescope for the opposite hemisphere. Waviness would be the least of your problems in this case.
Honestly Bill, how do you make this stuff up? At this rate you could give Gordon a good run for his money as the Confabulator in Chief, but he has such a long history you may never reach his heights. Worth a try though.
* https://themcdonalds.net/richard/wp/astrophotography-mounts-periodic-error-correction/
MikeR, please spend the rest of your life believing that everything on Earth rotates on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating. It would amuse me greatly to think that you will do so.
You won’t listen to me. You won’t listen to people on your own side of this debate, like Bindidon or Norman. So just…carry on being wrong. You are beyond help.
That is amusing.
And MikeR the waviness isn’t visible because when focused on objects many light years away 4,000 mile amplitude waviness will simply just be so small you wouldn’t be able to see it. For you its out of sight out of mind.
“All the particles of earth are in curvilinear translation because of the earth having multiple axes. ” [Bill]
No, Bill. With curvilinear translation, all particles have the same motion, i.e. all particles move on congruent curves. That is not the case with the earth.
Furthermore, Figure 2b does not fit the moon’s motion, because an ellipse is not a circle. Per Madhavi, the moon would be considered general plane motion, which “can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation”.
DREMPT,
Now you are getting it
“Yes MikeR, the telescope mount rotates on its own axis. Which does not mean that every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating.”
Yes it rotates on its own axis just the right amount to counter the rotation on its own axis caused by the rotation of the Earth, so it can keep pointing at the same object.
So its rotating on its own axis, and then you turn the motor on, voila, it’s no longer rotating on its own axis.
Because the rotation of the Earth causes it to rotate in one direction, and the motor causes it to rotate in the other direction in the exact same speed.
Once every 23 hours and 56 minutes.
I agree that the particles of the Earth are not in curvilinear translation, but who says rotation cannot be in an ellipse!? Certainly not the sources which have defined revolution as a rotation about an external axis.
“Yes it rotates on its own axis just the right amount to counter the rotation on its own axis caused by the rotation of the Earth, so it can keep pointing at the same object.”
No, it rotates on its own axis to counter the rotation of the Earth.
Switch the motor of the mount off. It is no longer rotating on its own axis. The Earth is still rotating on its own axis, and the motionless mount is rotating about that axis. Switch the motor of the mount on. It begins rotating on its own axis, as well as rotating about the Earth’s axis.
DREMPT,
With the motor on, it is possible to take pictures of the distant stars without them appearing on the photo as curved lines.
That’s because with the motor on, the telescope is not rotating, allowing clear pictures with no star trails.
Motor on, the mount is not rotating.
Motor off, the mount is rotating.
Go to your local astronomy club and have that explained to you.
You are wrong, but will just keep responding, so think what you like. There is no point talking to you.
Yes DREM,
The centre of mass of the mount is definitely rotating about the Earth’s axis (akin to “orbital motion” for the Moon). Where we differ is that you say that the telescope does not rotate about an axis parallel to the polar axis when undriven.
I say, in contrast, that in this situation the telescope , as a consequence of its “orbital motion” is also rotating about an axis that is parallel to the polar axis. When the motor is activated it rotates the telescope about this same axis in the opposite direction to compensate for this rotation.
Now where I live the polar axis points due south, about 30 degrees above the horizon (or 60 degrees from the zenith) . If I now move due south towards Earth’s geographic pole the polar axis has to be aligned higher to a point closer to the zenith. Once I reach the South Pole the mount is pointing vertically and the stars are circling the point directly above.
Now in this scenario where I exactly reach the pole then I am definitely just rotating on my axis which is coincident to the Earth’ s axis. DREM, I am sure you would agree with that!
Now DREM, according to your concept, this rotation around my axis suddenly ceases as soon as I step away in any direction, from directly above the pole.
This leaves the obvious question. How far do I need to move to stop myself from rotating about my axis?
1000 kms, 1 km , 100 m, 1 m , 1mm, 1 micron, 1 nanometre, 1 picometre, 1 femtometre, 1 attometre, 1 zeptometre ,1 yoctometre or perhaps 1 Planck length*.
This whole debate covers almost exactly the same material that was covered a couple of months ago.
See –
https://i.postimg.cc/XVMdQk89/death-spiral-last-rites.gif
Anyway I would love to know DREM how far I would need to move to stop rotating on my axis once I get to the South Pole. My huskies are straining at the leash. Quick let me know! Mush!
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Yes, MikeR, maybe your own axis never truly aligns with the Earth’s own axis. Or maybe it does. It is an interesting thing to waste your time worrying about, but it doesn’t change the fact that everything on Earth is not rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating. Maybe you could argue over how long is a piece of string, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? You have all sorts of weird and wonderful excuses for avoiding the basic reality that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, when there are even those on your side of the argument trying to get through to you that you’re wrong.
As I said, just live the rest of your life being wrong. I am OK with that.
DREM,
How about giving an answer to the above!
Another massive fail for the DREMster.
How many is that now? Let me count the ways.
Bill – “And MikeR the waviness isnt visible because when focused on objects many light years away 4,000 mile amplitude waviness will simply just be so small you wouldnt be able to see it. For you its out of sight out of mind.”
Yes Bill , you are out of your mind and you should definitely be out of sight.
Bill, what I gather you are alluding to, is parallax due to the diameter of the earth.
Due to your obvious expertise in Astronomy (/sarc off), you should know that the standard parallax method used in Astronomy employs the distance between the Earth and the Sun, not the Earth’s diameter. This effect is over 10,000 times smaller than the standard parallax method.
To illustrate this the waviness you describe is maximal for the closest star Proxima Centauri ( 1.4 parsecs away) and is a bit over 1 millionth of an arc second. The best resolution we can obtain on earth using telescopes on mountains is about 0.4 of an arc second due to atmospheric turbulence, while the Hubble telescope can manage 0.04 arc second.
Now this figure of about 1 milliinth of an arc second is for the closest star. As for the other 10^22 stars in the known universe the situation is obviously way, way worse.
Bill , we can safely say you contribution regarding waviness is about as useful as tits on a bull. Almost as useless as the non rotating moon concept.
Pusuant to the above. Physicists and mathematicians commonly test hypotheses, by examining the behaviour for limiting cases and seeing whether this limiting behaviour makes any sense.
The limiting case for the above is 90 degrees N or S. As one can see from DREM’s reluctance to answer, I think even he realises that his concept results in absurdity.
This absurdity is rotation, at exactly the precise position of the poles, but exactly zero rotation everywhere else.
Anyway, I think DREM can take some solace, in that nobody, with the exception of the truly gullible, could take this rigid body analogy to the Earth-Moon system seriously.
I did give an answer, MikeR. You just don’t like hearing that you don’t have a point. Here are some other pointless things you can worry about. Can the location of Earth’s rotational axis even be determined down to the level of a meter, or a millimeter, or less? On such scales, is not the Earth’s rotational axis constantly shifting position?
DREM,
Information about the precise measurement of the earth’s axis of rotation can be found here –
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111222103114.htm
and
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Home/home_node.html
Also DREM the Chandler Wobble causes the axis to vary by 9 m at the poles over a period of 433 days.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
Accordingly it could be difficult to locate the exact position of the pole by foot.
Maybe I will use you hypothesis to find the pole. I could use the gyroscopes in my mobile phone to find the exact point where I start to rotate on my axis or alternatively photograph star trails ( in winter of course) and find when they start to appear.
I hope you are correct because the South Pole is a very inhospitable place. I don’t want to spend a lot of time there trying to rotate and end up being forced to eat the huskies ( or vice-versa).
Again, DREM how close to the pole do I have to be to start rotating?
Lay one object on top of another object, so that their centers of mass align. How far do you have to move the top object, before the centers of mass are out of alignment?
1000 kms, 1 km , 100 m, 1 m , 1mm, 1 micron, 1 nanometre, 1 picometre, 1 femtometre, 1 attometre, 1 zeptometre ,1 yoctometre or perhaps 1 Planck length?
This is no more meaningful than what you are asking me.
DREM,
To your question, I would say 1 Planck length.
Is that your answer? So if I can get within 1 Planck length I will instantly start rotating?
p.s. just a reminder that Nature abhors a vacuum. It also intensely dislikes infinitely large discontinuities.
You don’t “start rotating”. You were already rotating, just not on your own axis. If you happened to be standing at one of the Poles, so that your own center of mass was aligned with it, then technically yes, you would be rotating on your own axis. If your own center of mass is not aligned with the Pole, then you are still rotating, just not on your own axis.
The Earth rotates on its own axis. Therefore everything on Earth is rotating about that axis.
That does not mean that everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis.
DREM,
OK, let me get this straight. I am not rotating on my axis (just the Earth ‘s axis) as long as I am more than one Planck Length away from the pole?
Is that your final position?
If your center of mass is aligned with the Pole, then you are rotating on your own axis. If your center of mass is not aligned with the Pole, then you are rotating about the Earth’s axis. Your obsession with “at what exact distance do things become out of alignment” is your own problem.
MikeR says:
”Yes DREM,
The centre of mass of the mount is definitely rotating about the Earth’s axis (akin to “orbital motion” for the Moon). Where we differ is that you say that the telescope does not rotate about an axis parallel to the polar axis when undriven.”
Yes I understand that you want to create unnecessary and potentially confusing and destructive redundancies.
And for what reason? Oh thats right the only given reason so far has been because you want to pronounce certain astronomers correct in something they once said without ever establishing a science case for what they said.
certainly no other reason has been brought forth. Its kind of like a celebrity fan club or a bunch of doting worshipers complimenting an aristocrat.
is there another purpose for an additional axis to harbor yet another redundant rotation?
there is nothing unique about your telescope that isn’t explained by the ball on a string or even a individual atom in the platorm merry-go-round toys are mounted on.
why not just run around and start sticking axes anywhere and everywhere and start claiming any artificial geographical boundaries surrounding it are all rotating on this axis you just arbitrary defined? Stick an axis into Boston and run it parallel to the earth’s axis and have it come out somewhere in Chile and claim the world actually rotates around that axis?
yes and speaking of points. . . .that point near Polaris that MikeR claims the telescope is rotating on
DREM,
It’s definitely your problem as it is another hole in your theory.
Mathematicians can tolerate them in theory, but in practice Nature loathes infinite discontinuities.
An infintely small gap between the rotation on an axis and non rotation on an axis is, of course, an absurdity in practice,
Like your numbskull theory there a no practical applications to any of this. It just enables some people to indulge their fantasies that they are the chosen few who understand physics and astronomy.
Bill you have gone into full “red herring mode”.
The Boston, Chile axis can be drawn if one likes but the relevant one , if your telescope in Boston, is an axis parallel to the Earth’s axis at Boston. Likewise for Chile*.
I can assure you equatorial mounts work in both places as long as the polar axis is aligned appropriately.
*I have used an equatorially mounted telescope at an observatiry in the incredibly dark skies of the Atacama. I assure you it worked fine. Haven’t done Boston though.
Obviously the point flew far over your head Mike.
Once again the point is there are an infinite number of places to put an axis parallel to the earth’s spin axis. Sighting up those lines you will see Polaris nearby.
And yes an axis parallel to the earth’s axis going into Boston should come out a lot closer to Chile than the how close to Polaris the area of space the earth’s axis points at.
But what have you proven by showing you can put an axis where ever you please?
That there is a infinite amount of angular momentum possessed by the earth?
Lets see your math on that Mike. I will settle for you proving the appropriate place would be to put an axis in the moon.
But you should probably save yourself the effort as months ago you were provided with a science paper, by Madhavi, that shows that a proper hierarchical and organized system has already been devised via the discipline of kinematics.
So feel free to ignore that and continue treating science like an adoring fan, and believing everything you have been told.
MikeR, your theory that every atom of the planet is rotating on its own axis, plus every blade of grass, plus every person, plus every continent, plus every tree or building, plus every brick of the building, plus every street and neighborhood, plus every town and city, plus every microorganism, plus every zoo…all rotating on their own axes at the same time, just because the Earth is rotating, is rather more problematic than just worrying about if or if not your own axis can ever truly align with the Earth’s.
A Lunatics Guide to the Lunar Non Rotating Hypothesis.
It is always good to take a break from responding to nonsense and summarise the state of affairs regarding the hypothesis in point form. Here is a short synopsis.
Point 1.
The non rotating hypothesis is totally inconsequential. For example NASA’s space program that sent man to the Moon managed this feat while believing that the moon rotated. Numerous other space programs have landed probes on the surface of the Moon while holding the same belief.
In practical terms, the belief that the moon does not rotate is simply a belief. If either DREM or Bill or any of the other of the cohort can provide a concrete example where it matters I would love to hear it. Otherwise it’s all irrelevant bull shit. So guys put up or shut up.
Point 2.
The primary argument involves a rotating rigid body (i.e. wooden horses on merry-go-rounds) which is totally inappropriate to the Earth/Moon system, for the following reasons,
(a) the Earth does not rotate on its axis with the same orbital rate as the Moon.
(b) there appears to be no physical links, such as spokes, string etc. that join the Earth to the Moon. The Earth and the Moon are able to rotate independently.
(c) the Moon moves in elliptical orbit. This is incompatible with a rigid body that is rotating which obviously only allows constituent parts to rotate in circles around the centre of rotation.
Point 3.
Let’s pretend for the moment to disregard points 1 and 2. Any part of a rigid body rotates ( including atoms, olives and anchovies) , with respect to an external frame of reference, around a local axis that is parallel to the central axis that the entire rigid body rotates about. If each part could rotate (or not rotate) independently then the body would not be rigid!
So , even if we accept the rigid body description, the Moon will still rotate with respect to an external frame of reference ( such as directions, up, down, left and right or NSWE) see –
https://i.postimg.cc/tJN70C67/Moon-Earth.gif
Points 4 to 100.
Google the terms “tidal locking” and “why do we see only one face of the moon”, “Moon’s librations”, ” lunar range finding via laser retroreflectors” and “rotational periods of the moons of the solar system” . Keep reading the material* until you get to point 100 or you get totally bored, which ever comes first.
* warning – the material encountered will range from pre-school to advanced university level, so you may need to brush up on your physics if you want to tackle the more advanced material.
p.s. I anxiously await a response from DREM et al. starting with Point 1.
^^ Gish gallop ^^
Good summary MikeR. Each point clear and concise.
And sure enough, there are no good answers offered up by the TEAM.
1) No, the moon’s rotation debate affects nothing. It just reveals that the “Spinners” lack the capacity for independent thought.
2) You have missed the point of the simple analogies, as explained ad nauseam.
3) Judging rotation by studying an inertial reference frame centered on the center of mass of the orbiting object, as opposed to a frame centered on the center of the orbit, is perhaps the number one reason you continually make the same mistakes.
DREM’s response to point 1. “No, the moons rotation debate affects nothing. It just reveals that the Spinners lack the capacity for independent thought.”
As an inveterate “Spinner* ” , I am glad, with respect to point 1, we have finally found some common ground, in that the non-rotating hypothesis is totally useless in practice.
As you say it is simply meant to demonstrate your capacity for independent thought, which it does admirably.
With your your theory you could emulate Samuel Rowbotham, the English inventor who was also capable of great feats of independent thought –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
Fortunately , there are also institutions that cater for people with similar “independent thoughts”** and you could find many friends their with similar intellectual proclivities.
* In the interests of full disclosure, I must reveal that am usually a left hand orthodox Spinner but on a sticky wicket I can bowl a few Googl(i)es.
** since the trend to deinstitutionalization there are less avenues to safely contain the “truly independent thinkers” but DREM you may be lucky.
Hush now, child.
DREM,
With regard to point 2 above, an answer of yes to parts (a), (b) and (c) are all necessary preconditions for the rigid body hypothesis to be sustained for the Earth/Moon system.
For (a) do you believe that, either the Earth rotates on its axis every 29.3 days, or alternatively does not rotate on its axis to match the Moon’s non rotation?
For (b) are there spokes, strings, stairways etc. that physically connect the Earth to the Moon?
For (c) do you believe any part of a rotating rigid body of any shape (circular, square, rectangular, elliptical etc.) can be moving in an elliptical path around the centre of rotation?
So DREM, in order to make sure we are on the same page, do you think all of a b and c are true or do you have reservations about any of them?
p.s. DREM, I think the wooden horses on merry-go-round are about to depart to the knackery leaving only a light dusting of sawdust as a residue.
There is no “rigid body hypothesis”. As I said, you have missed the point of the simple analogies.
DREM,
That’s very strange.
So why, in this debate about the Moon’s rotation, did you continually refer to the wooden horse on a merry-go-round example (about 80 times this month alone), plates a la Madhavi (numerous times over the previous couple of months, Bill is now running with this) and, of course who could forget, Tesla’s Moon spokes (numerous times over the past few years) ?
Are these examples not rigid bodies? Are they not rigid enough or perhaps too rigid?
DREM, do you now disown them? So many questions, so few intelligent answers.
The simple analogies help explain (to those open-minded and/or intelligent enough) that the axis of rotation can lie outside of the body in question. So, in the case of the wooden horse, there is only one axis of rotation, passing through the center of the merry-go-round. There is no axis of rotation going through the wooden horse, because the wooden horse is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is only rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
If you zoom in your frame of reference so that it is centered on the center of mass of the horse, you miss the necessary context to understand that. You end up erroneously thinking that the horse is rotating on its own axis. This is the “illusion” Tesla referred to. You need to zoom out your frame of reference in order to see where the axis of rotation really is.
And this is all the simple analogies are really designed to explain. Nobody is arguing that the moon is actually rigidly attached to the Earth.
“The simple analogies help” people who are incapable of explaining things that deviate from the simple analogies.
IOW. If you have a model that in no way shape or form has explained the observations, one just has to claim that it is not a real model. It is just an analogy!
Then when they claim that the real model can account for all the observations Lunar Poles, Lunar Axis, Pole stars, Libration, they are never able to show the real model and how it actually explains things.
They simply return to the comfort of discussing the simple analogies.
Its a fantastic evasion tactic.
Nate says:
Then when they claim that the real model can account for all the observations Lunar Poles, Lunar Axis, Pole stars, Libration, they are never able to show the real model and how it actually explains things.
They simply return to the comfort of discussing the simple analogies.
Its a fantastic evasion tactic.
=============================
You are the one evading the simple analogy Nate. Your argument boils down to claims that observations of Lunar Poles, Lunar Axis, Pole stars, and Libration prove the analogy wrong.
Madhavi clearly defines pure rotation on an external axis as an element of kinematics.
You certainly can get all those observations on a body that is part of a rigid structure as well. Mike R and yourself have in FACT gone way out of your way to argue that with rotating particles in chalked circles on merry-go-rounds, wooden horses, and welded globes.
These are illusions. No mathematical-based science has separated the angular momentum of a spinning disk from the spin angular momentum of each particle of the disk.
It’s not even clear if you accept that the appearance of rotating individual particles of a chalked circle on a merry-go-round is an illusion .
But in the end you just simply deny they are illusions. No references, no new publications, just up and up denial.
DREM,
“Interesting methodology” (is it patented?) to use totally inappropriate analogies to make your points. I personally prefer the flying pig analogy which is much more appropriate to the nature of your arguments.
https://i.postimg.cc/L4PG1fq5/Orbital-Pig.gif
If necessary , I can modify it to be a longitudinally librating elliptically orbiting pig.
Bill,
So life is just an illusion. Yes it was probably a mistake to bother to address point 3 above, when points 1 and 2 were sufficient to knock the non rotating lunar hypothesis out of the park. However Bill, If you still want to run with the rigid body hypothesis then try your hand at answering a,b and c for point 2.
Anyway, for the sake of completeness, I will return to point 3 which involves rotation with respect to an external frame of reference. The external frame of reference can be via directions that are linked to a sidereal frame of reference (i.e North within a degree from the Pole Star, East and West from the the azimuthal rise and set position of the Sun at the equinoxes etc.). If you think these are illusions, then you are deluded.
Bill, as you wanted references, I suggest you should do some reading about sidereal frames of reference.
http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~kgg/teaching/modern/week1.html
If you can’t cope with this material then just think of the screen coordinates, top, bottom left and right as your external frame of reference.
Here is something that will illustrate the concept of an external frame of reference that includes a compass rose to make the point clearer.
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
p.s. Bill, if you think directions are illusory then you might want to try out orienteering as a sport. Remember to bring bread crumbs so you can find your way home.
MikeR says:
”Bill,
So life is just an illusion.”
————————————–
No life is not a illusion, just some people are deluded about reality.
====================================
MikeR says:
”Yes it was probably a mistake to bother to address point 3 above, when points 1 and 2 were sufficient to knock the non rotating lunar hypothesis out of the park. ”
———————-
Point 1.
”The non rotating hypothesis is totally inconsequential.”
I have said that several times over the past few months as well as other non-spinners have acknowledged that. It’s just taken you so long to figure out you needed to mount that horse you forgot that it was already a point made.
Point 2.
”The primary argument involves a rotating rigid body (i.e. wooden horses on merry-go-rounds) which is totally inappropriate to the Earth/Moon system.”
(a) the Earth does not rotate on its axis with the same orbital rate as the Moon.
So what? Supposedly someday its rotation will stop and the earth and moon will continue to orbit the barycenter if perfect time with each other as they currently do.
(b) there appears to be no physical links, such as spokes, string etc. that join the Earth to the Moon. The Earth and the Moon are able to rotate independently.
Friction isn’t fundamentally different than rigidity, just that it may or may not be overcome before some other rigid parts break off (actually friction is a process of surface wear thus stuff coming apart, just that it happens at various rates.) A friction clutch mechanism is a common way to engage rigidity in Madhavi rotation systems. The question of friction is merely a question about adequacy to get the job done. The job it does on the moon has been consistently adequate for a long long time.
(c) the Moon moves in elliptical orbit. This is incompatible with a rigid body that is rotating which obviously only allows constituent parts to rotate in circles around the centre of rotation.
Incompatible? Why? Are you saying if the moon’s orbit were perfectly circular you would be OK with the idea?
*************************************************
Bill re – Point 1. The non rotating hypothesis is totally inconsequential.
“I have said that several times over the past few months as well as other non-spinners have acknowledged that.”
Bill, I am particularly pleased that you and DREM acknowledge this hypothesis is just arm chair theorizing (a.k.a. wanking).
*************************************************
Bill re point 2(a) the Earth does not rotate on its axis with the same orbital rate as the Moon.
“So what? Supposedly someday its rotation will stop and the earth and moon will continue to orbit the barycenter if perfect time with each other as they currently do.”
Yes Bill, it may in the future but we are discussing the present. Anyway in the very long term, will the Earth’s day be the equivalent of 29.3 current Earth days or simply indefinite (corresponding to zero rotation)?
I can see another conundrum coming on.
*************************************************
Bill re point 2(b)- there appears to be no physical links, such as spokes, string etc. that join the Earth to the Moon. The Earth and the Moon are able to rotate independently.
“Friction isn’t fundamentally different than rigidity….
Yes tidal friction is the cause of tidal locking, which in turn constrains the Moon to rotate on it’s axis once every 29.3 days but friction does not freeze the Moon’s rotation.
*************************************************
Bill re point 2(c) – the Moon moves in elliptical orbit. This is incompatible with a rigid body that is rotating which obviously only allows constituent parts to rotate in circles around the centre of rotation.
“Incompatible? Why? Are you saying if the moon’s orbit were perfectly circular you would be OK with the idea?”
Yes. totally OK if it is circular otherwise it is totally insane. Unfortunately for the Non Spinners, the Moon revolves in an elliptical orbit.
To paraphrase someone who was a brilliant original thinker who generated practical ideas.
“Just one more thing”.
Bill, above -“No mathematical-based science has separated the angular momentum of a spinning disk from the spin angular momentum of each particle of the disk.”
You asked for a mathematical relationship between the angular momentum for a spinning disk and the spin angular momentum of its constituent particles.
Here it is courtesy of Google and Calculus.
Firstly, recall the relationship for a spinning object.
L = I . w , where L is the angular momentum, I is the moment of inertia and w is the angular velocity.
The moment of inertia of a disk can be calculated via integration over the radius of the disk, for rings of varying radii , see –
https://byjus.com/jee/moment-of-inertia-of-a-disc/
Likewise for the moment of inertia of a ring. Here the integration is done for all the particles (which are rotating on their axes at the same rate as the disk is) in the ring from 0 to 360 degrees ( i.e. from 0 to 2 pi).
See part 1 of –
https://byjus.com/jee/moment-of-inertia-of-a-ring
Q.E.D.
They think everything on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating!
☺️
DREM, 100% sure do! If the Earth wasn’t rotating, then everything on the planet would definitely not be rotating about an axis parallel to the Earth’s rotational axis! 😀😀
p.s. the discussion is totally moot as you have already conceded that the description of Earth/Moon system as a rigid body is not appropriate.
See!
☺️
DREM,
Stare at the following
https://postimg.cc/9D97nd3y
Concentrate carefully on the 3 coloured arrows at left and the corresponding arrows on the right.
Let me know how long you need to stare at the depiction to realise that the arrows are rotating on their axes (left hand side) as well as around the centre of rotation of the plate (right hand side).
If you need me to explain the connection between the 2D plate and 3D Earth, I will be happy to oblige.
Have a nice day.
Yes, that is the illusion that confuses you so much. You divorce the motion of the arrows from the context of their orbit, then believe that represents reality. The rectangle, and all parts of the rectangle (including the arrows) are rotating about point O. The arrows are not rotating on their own axes.
Sorry for your loss.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see” Heywood , 1546.
Yes, all this time and you still cannot see through the illusion.
MikeR says:
“There are none so blind as those who will not see”
———————————–
You should take your own advice Mike.
1) to make your point you blind yourself in the individual diagrams to what the arrows are rotating around.
2) additionally you imply by so doing a duplication of the angular momentum around point O and blind yourself to that to suggest an angular momentum possessed around the arrows own axis . . . .essentially double counting.
3) you perpetuate your blindness by not addressing the mathematical absurdity of your construct. Double counting an all.
4) you fail to appreciate the logic that if the arrow are symbolic of the moon and the earth is always and forever at the tip of the point of the arrow; then the earth must be rotating around the moon.
5) you fail to appreciate the orbit entry process of an acceleration of spin rate around the orbited object being the physics of bodies through out the universe possessing an angular momentum.
6) your argument that the moon earth is not a rigid object and thus the spin rate of the moon on its axis may not accelerate as rapidly as the path spin rate around the earth may in fact be true. But its truth or falsehood is not an element once so to speak the cement has set. Unlike you I realize that to properly account for the angular momentum in a body not spinning at the same rate as the orbit one has to calculate the angular momentum associated with that as a counter element to the angular momentum of the object orbiting. As DREMT has pointed out that is how you need to account for it as an added spin in the opposite direction. But you are so married to rote book learning and so much avoid any degree of conceptualization you fail to see how ridiculous that is.
6) evidence of that is plain to see in the form of axial precession an axis point of that precession being perpendicular to forces of gravity.
Bill,
We are now debating the minutae involving a rigid body after you seem to have grudgingly admitted, above that a rigid body description of the Earth/Moon system is totally inappropriate.
However to humour you, I will just state that there is no double counting going on, as the angular momentum of the plate is made up of the integral of the contributions of angular momentum from each point of the plate, see our previous discussions that discussed the maths.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556668
Finally Bill, if you want to continue to this futile debate then you will have to renege on your grudging admission and explain how the rigid body description is consistent with the Earth/Moon system. You would have to explain the following.
(a) the Earth does not rotate on its axis with the same orbital rate as the Moon.
(b) there appears to be no physical links, such as spokes, string etc. that join the Earth to the Moon. The Earth and the Moon are able to rotate independently.
(c) the Moon moves in elliptical orbit. This is incompatible with a rigid body that is rotating which obviously only allows constituent parts to rotate in circles around the centre of rotation.
Maybe DREM can explain this to you but it might be the blind leading the blind.
MikeR says:
”Bill,
We are now debating the minutae involving a rigid body after you seem to have grudgingly admitted, above that a rigid body description of the Earth/Moon system is totally inappropriate.”
—————————————
You are truly getting desperate MikeR when you have to resort to such blatant and obvious strawmen to mount an argument. I said in fact just the opposite, that in every way the moon is bound to the earth by the same kind of forces that bind any rigid object together. And further I have clearly stated that those forces have worked for millions if not billions of years without failure. One cannot say the same for anything on the face of the earth Mike!
Not just rigidity but superior rigidity!
——–
——–
———-
———
MikeR says:
”However to humour you, I will just state that there is no double counting going on, as the angular momentum of the plate is made up of the integral of the contributions of angular momentum from each point of the plate, see our previous discussions that discussed the maths.”
That is humorous MikeR you claim a mathematical proof without a shred of mathematics.
You have a mass of 7.34767309 × 1022 kilograms flying around the earth faster than a bullet out of Barrett 50 caliber anti-material rifle. It would make one helluva a mess out of what ever it collided with and it doesn’t likely give a damn if all its atoms are rotating in the opposite direction or not.
———————
————–
———-
———
MikeR says:
”Finally Bill, if you want to continue to this futile debate then you will have to renege on your grudging admission and explain how the rigid body description is consistent with the Earth/Moon system. ”
—————————-
Oh OK now you are going to admit to be a bald-faced strawman-erecting liar. You just claimed I said it was ”totally inappropriate”. You on drugs or something?
—————–
————–
————-
———–
MikeR says:
(c) the Moon moves in elliptical orbit. This is incompatible with a rigid body that is rotating which obviously only allows constituent parts to rotate in circles around the centre of rotation.
—————————-
Look at an ellipse from the right angle it looks like a circle. Look at a circle from any angle but the right angle and it looks like an ellipse Mike. They are the same thing. There are only differences in vantage points.
You though like to cherry pick your vantage points as really that is the only argument you have put forth for claiming the moon does not rotate on the earth’s COG.
Oh Bill,
At first, I didn’t know what to say in response to your latest efforts. I was rendered speechless but have managed to recover(barely).
Firstly, I must unreservedly apologise for accusing you of not being totally insane. I thought for a brief moment that reality had intruded.
I misconstrued your “your argument that the moon earth is not a rigid object and thus the spin rate of the moon on its axis may not accelerate as rapidly as the path spin rate around the earth may in fact be true” to suggest that you were wavering in your belief that a rigid body was an accurate description or an appropriate analogy to the Earth/Moon.
I also thought perhaps , as your spiritual advisor may have had second thoughts , you might have followed dutifully.
Bill, I also enjoyed greatly your comment
“I said in fact just the opposite, that in every way the moon is bound to the earth by the same kind of forces that bind any rigid object together. ”
Hmm, so gravitational forces are the main mechanism that binds together the components of a platform of a merry-go-round? Alternatively the Lennard-Jones potential* at 384,000 km, is that what keeps the moon in orbit? “Interesting” theory but you need to clarify which of the two choices underpin your theory.
As for the ellipse being a perspective view of a circle, a straight line is similarly an edge on perspective of a circle. Consequently if you are claiming that the Moon’s orbital physics are dictated by such perspectives, then you are an amazingly “original” thinker.
On that note maybe get together with the team and write a sequel to Newton’s works (suggested title “Principia Nonsensica”). After all , in your collective opinion, Newton was wrong in his naive belief that the Moon rotated on it’s axis.
In addition Gordon could contribute appendices on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Possibly a place suitable for such a treatise would be Principia-Scientifica who seem willing to publish such material like this if it sufficiently if it sufficiently deranged.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential
MikeR says:
”Oh Bill,
At first, I didnt know what to say in response to your latest efforts. I was rendered speechless but have managed to recover(barely).
Firstly, I must unreservedly apologise for accusing you of not being totally insane. I thought for a brief moment that reality had intruded.
I misconstrued your your argument that the moon earth is not a rigid object and thus the spin rate of the moon on its axis may not accelerate as rapidly as the path spin rate around the earth may in fact be true to suggest that you were wavering in your belief that a rigid body was an accurate description or an appropriate analogy to the Earth/Moon.
I also thought perhaps , as your spiritual advisor may have had second thoughts , you might have followed dutifully.”
———————————
I realize that you the waning years of your second childhood some concepts may become increasingly difficult to wrap you mind around.
but to take it slowly and be abundantly clear the condition of an orbiting body that has not yet become tidal locked. . . .it is not a rigid object. I repeat in case that is too quick for you. If the moon is not tidally locked with its parent object. . . .from the standpoint of pure rotation it is not rigid.
A third time since I imagine how difficult it is for you to comprehend this. The earth is not in pure rotation around the sun. The moon when and if it once had an independent spin would not be a rigid object.
Thats kind of like molten steel, or unset concrete. . . .eventually they will solidify. But until they do they are not rigid. Got that yet?
Its not like God or something or your wacky version of science say everything has to be either rigid or not rigid AND be that in perpetuity!
————————
————————
————————
————————
MikeR says:
Bill, I also enjoyed greatly your comment
I said in fact just the opposite, that in every way the moon is bound to the earth by the same kind of forces that bind any rigid object together.
Hmm, so gravitational forces are the main mechanism that binds together the components of a platform of a merry-go-round? Alternatively the Lennard-Jones potential* at 384,000 km, is that what keeps the moon in orbit? Interesting theory but you need to clarify which of the two choices underpin your theory.
——————————-
I am a bit relutant to go far into this discussion as it might be too much for you in one session. After all it must really be a breathtaking experience to find out your assumption of rigid means always rigid was wrong.
Lets just leave it at all the various types of energy have similarities and well as differences, however, we don’t know if the differences are simply products of the certain environments and elements or it they are fundamentally different.
——————-
——————-
—————–
——————
MikeR says:
”As for the ellipse being a perspective view of a circle, a straight line is similarly an edge on perspective of a circle. Consequently if you are claiming that the Moons orbital physics are dictated by such perspectives, then you are an amazingly original thinker.”
————————-
Einstein was pretty much the original thinker on that. I just enjoyed reading about his discoveries. Perhaps you should read some in your little time left.
———————
——————–
———————
———————-
MikeR says:
”On that note maybe get together with the team and write a sequel to Newtons works (suggested title Principia Nonsensica). After all , in your collective opinion, Newton was wrong in his naive belief that the Moon rotated on its axis. In addition Gordon could contribute appendices on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Possibly a place suitable for such a treatise would be Principia-Scientifica who seem willing to publish such material like this if it sufficiently if it sufficiently deranged.”
—————————
I have no idea what Newton meant by ”its”. He left an unreferenced pronoun. It could be anything as far as I know. I* think the moon rotates on its orbital axis. So ”its axis” is the COG of earth. It has no other real axis, though that will not stop you or anybody else from imagining and describing one.
”The Lennard-Jones potential” You are starting to get it MikeR don’t quit now and go back to your strawman building right when you are on the verge of discovery.
The Lennard-Jones potential is a type of potential energy among molecules as gravity is type of potential energy among celestial objects. Wow!!! Isn’t that cool? Both metallic gear trains and planet and their moons are held together by types of potential energy!!!!!!!!!!!
bill, no need to quote in extenso when the source is immediately above your own undistilled logorrhea.
Svante, please stop trolling.
I was in two minds about responding to your latest comment. I could have let it just stand as a testament to stupidity* but due to my cantankerous nature I will make the following comments.
Your thoughts on the time evolution of the Earth/Moon system are “interesting**” but not in a good way.
As indicated with regard to the present state of affairs, the requirement that all parts of a rigid body rotate at the same rate is a significant problem for you and your colleague’s bespoke theory.
I suggest that your invocation of this theory might stem from a misunderstanding of the term “tidal locking”. It might sound that, at first glance, that locking would imply a rigid freezing of rotation, but as a cursory Google search would reveal, the term means locking of the rotation rate to the orbital rate.
Now we come another intellectual tour de force of Bill.
Bill – “After all it must really be a breathtaking experience to find out your assumption of rigid means always rigid was wrong.”
Yes, on the condition I might have, if I stated this assumption, otherwise this strawman argument consists entirely of red herrings and is entirely yours.
Additionally, as you have extemporized regarding rigid bodies, my impromptu thoughts are as follows.
When the entropy of the universe reaches it final plasma state then all rigid bodies will cease to exist and hopefully this discussion should have resolved itself by then.
In the meantime the fluid nature of a solid can be empirically observed by this experiment
https://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caught-on-camera-at-last-1.13418
Perhaps Bill you can spend some time, between drops, contemplating the ridiculous nature of your comments.
Finally, with regards to Newton’s understanding of lunar rotation about the Moon’s axis , (courtesy of Bindidon)-
“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,”
at https://tinyurl.com/y28mcb7q .
Not much wriggle room there, unless you are consulting the translation of this passage in Klingon. They always had a penchant for vagueness when it came to possessive pronouns.
However if you are still in doubt here is Newton’s description of libration (in English, for Klingon see – https://www.translator.eu/english/klingon/translation/ ).
From Isaac Newton and his Work in Astronomy and Optics by the astronomer and historian R.H. Curtiss.
Newton explained in the Principia the physical librations of the moon, in longitude and latitude, pointing out that it was the letters from himself that the explanation published by Mercator in 1676 had been based. Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction and its axis is not far from the normal to its orbital plane, it presents to the earth approximately the same face at all times.”
See
https://i.postimg.cc/hvQb9DwK/Newtonlibration-201129-182731.jpg
* I must apologise for my harshness*** and I am sure Bill is much smarter than his comments suggest. I think his comments are simply due to stubborn intransigence.
** I use the term loosely, in the manner that a nurse would employ to soothe a psychiatric patient.
*** due to my tolerance of fools being stretched beyond its elastic limits.
MikeR says:
It might sound that, at first glance, that locking would imply a rigid freezing of rotation, but as a cursory Google search would reveal, the term means locking of the rotation rate to the orbital rate.
————————————————-
Well if you weren’t fully ignorant of real world engineering you might have before spouting off about something you apparently know absolutely nothing about. . . .check to see how rigid your typical engineered object is. Estimate how much elasticity, and tolerances are typically employed in constructing mechanical objects. . . .then compared that to the moon’s tolerances on a ratio basis and then go completely stupid and decide to call out your own made up definition of what doesn’t qualify as a rigid object.
But nope, you are going to choose to just flap your jaws and prove to the world just how ignorant you are.
————————–
—————————-
—————————-
—————————
MikeR says:
Finally, with regards to Newton’s understanding of lunar rotation about the Moon’s axis , (courtesy of Bindidon)-
“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,”
Not much wriggle room there, unless you are consulting the translation of this passage in Klingon. They always had a penchant for vagueness when it came to possessive pronouns.
———————
You must be a klingon then. Its is a possessive pronoun and it is pretty definite if the object only has single instance, like ”the monkey scratched its nose” We know what nose the monkey was scratching. But if we take ”the horse stomped its hoof” we don’t know which hoof.
Now Newton was talking about the axis the moon rotates around, speaking of a day that takes a month. Clearly the axis he is referrring to is the COG of earth, not the axis of the earth/moon system traveling around the sun, and not the axis at the center of the galaxy either.
Bill,
Newton re libration – “Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction”.
Is this explicit enough?
Regarding the historical perspective, this is from Cassini, a contemporary of Newton ( they had a dispute with regard to the shape of the Earth, but apparently nothing about the Moon was in dispute) –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
As a follow up to the above.
Bill, as you are a devotee of the rigid body concept I have some questions that embody this concept as applied to celestial mechanics. Some of these questions caused DREMT much trouble but he now apparently disowns the concept, so you are on your own.
Does the Earth rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Moon revolves around the Earth?
To assist , see the following rigid body depiction of the Earth/Moon system . Note the rotation rate of the Earth.
https://i.postimg.cc/tJN70C67/Moon-Earth.gif
Is the rigid body theory only applicable to the Earth/Moon system? Does it cover orbital motion in general?
Does Mercury ,which is orbitally locked (2:3) to the sun, rotate on its axis at the same rate as Mercury revolves around the sun? Does the sun also rotate on its axis at the same rate as Mercury orbits or at 2/3rds the rate.
As a consequence of the rigid body description, does the Earth rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Earth revolves around the sun? Does the sun likewise rotate at the same rate as the Earth’s orbital motion.
Do all orbitally locked moons in the solar system obey the rigid body hypothesis? If these are all rigidly locked then the parent planet must rotate on its axis at the same rate as each moon’s orbital rate. For planets that have multiple moons, can the parent planet simultaneously rotate on its axis at the appropriate rate for each moon?
So many questions, so far never an answer that makes any sense to anyone other than Bill.
MikeR says:
Bill,
Newton re libration – “Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction”.
Is this explicit enough?
———————————
In short. . . .NO!
1) The moon is in sole possession of its own rotational axis and shares it with no other object. Thus it is in fact ”its own”
2) You did not nor as far as I know nobody else provided a direct quote of Newton that used the idiom ”its own”. The only Newton quote provided was “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,”
You then started adding quotations around the quotation of somebody else describing what they believed Newton thought. At first you added just one quotation mark, now you are trying to add a second one. But because of one it doesn’t make any difference even if it were a quote as the moon does not share that axis with anything else.
===================
================
=============
============
MikeR asks questions:
1) Does the Earth rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Moon revolves around the Earth?
Answer: obviously not. The moons pivot point is on the COG of earth. The earth’s COG does not change with respect to the moon and earth, however the earth’s spins and creates friction by that COG not being on the earth’s axis. But this is a trivial engineering problem that has no effect on Madhavi’s definitions of rotation and is easily duplicated.
2) Is the rigid body theory only applicable to the Earth/Moon system? Does it cover orbital motion in general?
Answer: Yes and no. The earth for example is in rigid rotation around the Sun but it does have an independent spin on a different internal axis. Here one would refer to the ”earth’s own axis” as the internal one. But the orbital rotational axis of the earth is one of its axes. Since that orbital rotational axis is shared with other planets then it would be incorrect to refer to the earth’s orbital rotational axis as ”its own axis”.
3) Does Mercury ,which is orbitally locked (2:3) to the sun, rotate on its axis at the same rate as Mercury revolves around the sun?
Answer: I haven’t paid any attention to Mercury.
4) as a consequence of the rigid body description, does the Earth rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Earth revolves around the sun? Does the sun likewise rotate at the same rate as the Earth’s orbital motion.
Answer: what kind of dumb questions are those? I would say n/a.
5) Do all orbitally locked moons in the solar system obey the rigid body hypothesis?
Answer: I sense you are getting confused again Mike. ”orbitally locked”? All objects in orbit are orbitally locked. But only tidally locked orbitally locked objects are subject to the rigid body definition of pure rotation as defined and illustrated by Madhavi in Figure 2(b).
6) If these are all rigidly locked then the parent planet must rotate on its axis at the same rate as each moon’s orbital rate. For planets that have multiple moons, can the parent planet simultaneously rotate on its axis at the appropriate rate for each moon?
Answer: Finally a good question. It gets into the topic of barycenters between a planet and a moon (say Pluto and Charon). Is it possible that the mutual barycenter rotation of Pluto and Charon could become tidally locked to the COG of the Sun? I would suspect so theoretically but haven’t spent much time pondering the problem of how a frictional lock would occur since it would need to span two objects. Perhaps a close examination of the universe could reveal planet moon systems tidally locked in rotation to their stars. If so from your cherry-picked vantage point I suppose you would remain in denial.
Having just skim read Bill’s latest piece, I can see it is just another morass of confusion.
With regards to Newton, the quote above was from someone who actually read Newton’s Principia.
It was this person’s distinct impression that the “its” referred to the Moon’s axis and not to the Earth’s. Bill If you beg to differ then I suggest you read the primary source material (How’s your Latin? Pig latin probably won’t be of much assistance) and provide the relevant extracts that suggest otherwise . In this case I greatly look forward to your forensic dissection of the relevant material.
Likewise, as I said above, Cassini (astronomer and part time astrologer which was part of the job description at that time) explicitly wrote that the moon rotated on its axis as part of Laws governing the Moon’s motions.
Cassini and Newton were contemporaries. If Newton ( genius and part time alchemist) , who was a notorious curmudgeon about such matters* , disagreed about the Moon’s rotation he would surely have raised an objection to Cassini’s Laws.
So in reality, in one corner, we have Newton and Cassini plus the entire astronomical community, both past and present . In the other corner we have DREM, Bill and an assortment of fruit cakes (limited edition), who claim to be sole custodians of the special “insights” that Newton and Cassini lacked.
It is tough to work out who to believe, isn’t it?
* witness the dispute between the two about the shape of the Earth.
“as a consequence of the rigid body description, does the Earth rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Earth revolves around the sun? Does the sun likewise rotate at the same rate as the Earth’s orbital motion.”
Bill’s Answer: what kind of dumb questions are those? I would say n/a.”
Bill, consult Madhavi part 2 and figure 2b for the correct answer.
MikeR says:
With regards to Newton, the quote above was from someone who actually read Newton’s Principia.
It was this person’s distinct impression that the “its” referred to the Moon’s axis and not to the Earth’s.
=================================
You are arguing with yourself Mike. What did you do just dream up that impression???
This blog is supposed to be about science and not just what you believe somebody meant who didn’t clearly state what they meant. That problem tends to occur when science moves into the occult and mathematics is thrown out the window.
Just consult Madhavi figure 2(b) for what rotation on an external axis looks like. And be aware such an axis for the moon is shared by no other thus it is the moon’s ‘own’ orbital rotational axis and only the moon’s ‘own’ orbital rotational axis.
Unless you can come up something other than the gobbledygook you and others (Nate, Ball4, Bindidon et. al.) keep pooping in here. . . .the ruling scientific reference on this will remain Madhavi.
Ok Bill, so you dispute someone who has actually read Newton’s source material. On what basis? You have read it? Well done. Show us your translation.
If you don’t have one , then this cements your status as a bloviating wind bag. Sorry to be harsh but there are limits.
With regard to Madhavi, even the most cursory reading and glance at fig 2b shows the entire plate rotating at the same rate. Hence the rigid plate analogy for the Earth/Moon system would result in the Earth rotating on its axis as the moon revolves about and at the same rate (i.e monthly).
Even the leader of the lunartic pack acknowledges this as a significant problem with the analogy.
MikeR, bill also needs to read up on relativity, as his statement: “Just consult Madhavi figure 2(b) for what rotation on an external axis looks like.” obviously depends on the location of the observer which is never specified. The lunatic fringe commenters always avoid commenting on the observer’s location. To them, the bolted horse on the mgr doesn’t spin to a fixed observer on the mgr, the room (or if outdoors, the amusement park) spins about the horse to that observer.
For all the non-spinner observers, they are located on, and commenting from, the mgr and on Madhavi’s plate. For all the spinner observers, they are located in the mgr room (or amusement park) off the mgr and off the plate. DREMT, for example, lives on, and comments from, the mgr and the plate.
The lunatic fringe is aptly named as they live on, and comment from, the moon where the sun is observed to spin about the moon. Their zombie ideas will try to keep coming back to life forever. Since zombies eat brains, the lunatic fringe does not fear zombies.
Ball4 says:
MikeR, bill also needs to read up on relativity, as his statement: Just consult Madhavi figure 2(b) for what rotation on an external axis looks like. obviously depends on the location of the observer which is never specified.
=============================
If you want to make that argument throw out all the following malarkey that I moved down in this reply and make an actual argument for your position here Ball4. Where exactly would one sit and not have the moon look like it was moving around the earth like a ball attached to a string?
The only time thats the case is when you hold up some horseblinders where you can no longer see the earth. . . .like some moron was doing in here with little diagrams and eliminating the object the circle was revolving around.
So indeed I recognize your stupid argument as one where ‘ignorance’ is enforced as a condition of the argument via eliminating critical information. I suppose you live your entire life like that Ball4 bending over and lifting your skirt over your head for your fav politicians as well.
Malarky Non-argument ignored:
‘The lunatic fringe commenters always avoid commenting on the observers location. To them, the bolted horse on the mgr doesnt spin to a fixed observer on the mgr, the room (or if outdoors, the amusement park) spins about the horse to that observer.
For all the non-spinner observers, they are located on, and commenting from, the mgr and on Madhavis plate. For all the spinner observers, they are located in the mgr room (or amusement park) off the mgr and off the plate. DREMT, for example, lives on, and comments from, the mgr and the plate.
The lunatic fringe is aptly named as they live on, and comment from, the moon where the sun is observed to spin about the moon. Their zombie ideas will try to keep coming back to life forever. Since zombies eat brains, the lunatic fringe does not fear’ zombies.
“Where exactly would one sit and not have the moon look like it was moving around the earth like a ball attached to a string?”
An observer sitting in the driver seat of the LRV delivered by Apollo 17. The Earth would be observed to rotate on its own axis with day/night cycles and hang somewhat steady in the lunar sky.
The sun would be observed from the LRV to rotate around the stationary moon causing day/night cycles at the LRV site.
“argument ignored:”
Understand, since it is profoundly clear that bill ignores relativity.
Ball4 says:
An observer sitting in the driver seat of the LRV delivered by Apollo 17. The Earth would be observed to rotate on its own axis with day/night cycles and hang somewhat steady in the lunar sky.
The sun would be observed from the LRV to rotate around the stationary moon causing day/night cycles at the LRV site.
=====================
So now you are now saying the sun rotates around the moon? LMAO!
I assume then you are also claiming all the heavens rotate around the moon then. . . .or is it just the earth that you figure out from believing the moon is the one doing the rotating?
Perhaps you ought to reach out to Copernicus to straighten it out for you. To me from that perspective the moon must be rotating and the earth acting like a stationary satellite. But it definitely appears to be rather backwards thinking there.
“So now you are now saying the sun rotates around the moon?”
To the observer sitting in the LRV. It is profoundly clear that bill ignores relativity. All the non-spinners are simply taking turns sitting in the LRV when commenting.
“To me from that perspective the moon must be rotating..”
Yes. On the moon’s own internal axis. It’s all relative bill.
Bill,
Poor old Tesla, if only he had stuck to his many strengths, he may not have died penniless and in relative obscurity.
His libration explanation recognised the elliptical orbit of the Moon but paradoxically included a reference to a ball on a string which involves circular motion* ( i.e. the length of the string doesn’t change as it rotates) hence the contradictions.
By the way nowhere in the discussion of libration does he say
“if the moon is going to spin on its own axis as well the total energy would be greater”. I think he makes this claim earlier before he finishes with his attempt to explain libration by demonstrating the well known fact that energy of rotation is much smaller than the orbiting energy. Bizarre and contradictory.
“And of course you remain incorrect about Tesla being ignored. He isnt being ignored this entire thread over several topics is but one piece of evidence of that. You have been all over it, obviously terrified of the possibility he could be right.”
I think I indicated ealier that he was ignored by the astronomers and physicists and his only advocates were the crackpots.
p.s. Bill your grandiose claims that you understand Newton’s Principia better than an astronomer who has actually read the text is highly amusing. Have you thought about joining the circus? There is room in DREM’s clown car for one more.
* his infamous rigid spoke model is also totally incompatible with elliptical motion.
bill, it is you ignoring Tesla’s work in his wheel assembly example showing the moon and ball on string rotate on their own internal axes once per orbit of the external axis. Aligning with Tesla’s unknown editor and/or verbal translator is where bill goes wrong.
MikeR says:
Ok Bill, so you dispute someone who has actually read Newtons source material. On what basis? You have read it? Well done. Show us your translation.
If you dont have one , then this cements your status as a bloviating wind bag. Sorry to be harsh but there are limits.
===================================
Mike that ammonia retention is really affecting your thinking. I am not disputing the translation. ‘Its own axis’ refers to the rotational axis of the moon. It only has one and its external. It is you who are trying to make something of the translation that has zero basis in science.
================================
=====================================
=================================
==================================
MikeR says:
With regard to Madhavi, even the most cursory reading and glance at fig 2b shows the entire plate rotating at the same rate. Hence the rigid plate analogy for the Earth/Moon system would result in the Earth rotating on its axis as the moon revolves about and at the same rate (i.e monthly).
=================
MikeR. . . .it is well known in physics that the COG of the earth is not on the rotational axis of the earth and that it does not rotate around that axis. Try reading some books on the topic before spewing out your obvious ignorance.
***************************
Bill says-
Its own axis refers to the rotational axis of the moon. It only has one and its external
*****************************
Translation of Newton about libration. “Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction.
It is abundantly and explicitly clear that Newton is referring to two separate cicular motions not one! Consequently two axes.
**********************
Bill says-
it is well known in physics that the COG of the earth is not on the rotational axis of the earth and that it does not rotate around that axis. Try reading some books on the topic before spewing out your obvious ignorance.
**********************
Well known by whom? Reference please. Which books and page numbers? What axis does it rotate about every 24 hours. The sun perhaps?
If you are going to make shit up you need to back it up. Preferably with facts.
MikeR says:
Translation of Newton about libration. Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction.
It is abundantly and explicitly clear that Newton is referring to two separate cicular motions not one! Consequently two axes.
**********************
Mike that is not a ”translation” of Newton. Thats somebody else’s opinion of what Newton said. You invented the quotation marks yourself.
Just more nonsense that you habitually spew without any science whatsoever to back it up.
=======================
======================
======================
======================
Bill says-
it is well known in physics that the COG of the earth is not on the rotational axis of the earth and that it does not rotate around that axis. Try reading some books on the topic before spewing out your obvious ignorance.
**********************
Well known by whom? Reference please. Which books and page numbers? What axis does it rotate about every 24 hours. The sun perhaps?
If you are going to make shit up you need to back it up. Preferably with facts.
========================
Its a simple analogy to the well accepted concepts of kinematics
using the same forces known to physics to describe bodies bound together.
Indeed one could conclude the particles of chalk on the surface of a rotating merry-go-round rotate on their own internal axis if one chooses to ignore the well defined system that they are bound to. But that viewpoint is such nonsense a 3rd grader can easily see through it. Its just that many adults are far more gullible than the typical 8 year old.
Bill,
“Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction…”.
This extract was again from a book by the astronomer R.H. Curtiss who based his opinion on having actually read the original . Here is the relevant page from the book where information I quoted came from –
https://tinyurl.com/y38yq3b4
Again, if you claim this is a mistranslation as you have translated Newton’s Principia yourself, then please show us your work. Otherwise your original diagnosis of bloviating blowhard stands.
Your bloviating via hand waving and lack of references in the last part of your comment also supports this diagnosis.
MikeR says:
“Since the moon revolves about the earth and rotates on its own axis in the same period and the same direction…”.
This extract was again from a book by the astronomer R.H. Curtiss who based his opinion on having actually read the original . Here is the relevant page from the book where information I quoted came from –
——————————
Mike you are a flipping moron. First an ‘opinion’ isn’t science. Second, he didn’t express an opinion on the spinner/non-spinner issue. . . .Third, you just ignorantly surmised he did because you have absolutely not a shred of scientific-based curiosity in your entire body. He used an unreferenced pronoun that could equally be applied to an internal or external axis that an objects particles spin around.
And you are so ignorant of how ignorant that is come in here and offer it as evidence. LMAO!!
https://tinyurl.com/y38yq3b4
Again, if you claim this is a mistranslation as you have translated Newton’s Principia yourself, then please show us your work. Otherwise your original diagnosis of bloviating blowhard stands.
Your bloviating via hand waving and lack of references in the last part of your comment also supports this diagnosis.
Bill,
You have got an uphill battle to try and convince your opinion, based on zero evidence of having read Newton’s Principia, is more valid than an astronomer’s opinion who has actually the read the primary resource material!
Bill’s legal attorney -“Your honour, in the opinion of the entire astronomical community the Earth is approximately spherical and possess vast amounts of evidence to support this.
My client has no evidence, except via his own opinion, that the Earth is flat.
Your honour as it’s just simply a matter of conflicting opinions, no conclusions to the veracity of the Flat Earth theory can be reached”.
Just more b.s. Bill. You seem to have an almost inexhaustible supply. You would be better off being a fertiliser salesman rather than whatever occupation you currently or previously have held.
Bill.
It looks like Tesla agrees with Newton (or alternatively the opinion of the astronomer R.H.Curtiss).
Courtesy of Ball4 from Tesla’s Moon publication -the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.
MikeR says:
You have got an uphill battle to try and convince your opinion.
=====================
Its your problem Mike. I said at the outset of this discussion many months ago in a different predecessor thread it doesn’t matter. Its you who is trying to advance the idea that the moon has an independent rotation about its internal axis. I would think that obviously you would not deny it rotates around the earths COG.
========================
=========================
=======================
=====================
MikeR says:
My client has no evidence, except via his own opinion, that the Earth is flat.
==================
Back to strawman production eh Mike?
From the beginning we asked you to provide scientific evidence the moon rotates around its own internal axis and all you have produced are opinions and no science. . . .like flat earth folks.
The non-spinners produced the Madhavi kinematics that show objects can indeed rotate around external axes in exactly the same manner the moon does. Score 1 to nothing in favor of the non-spinners. Sorry but you guys waste a lot of time arguing for something you have no more evidence of than a guy sitting on the surface of the earth opining that the earth is flat.
========================
=========================
=======================
=====================
MikeR says:
It looks like Tesla agrees with Newton (or alternatively the opinion of the astronomer R.H.Curtiss).
Courtesy of Ball4 from Tesla’s Moon publication -the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.
===========================
Thanks for another demonstration of how stupid you are and how you just jump on whatever bandwagon you wish to without demanding any evidence of the fact at hand. You do the same sort of thing for CAGW.
Fact is Tesla offers that definition of rotation for the purpose of proving that moon does not rotate around its own axis. Ball4, another ignoramus of the same sort as you, pulls out of context Tesla’s proof that the moon does not rotate on its own axis and stupidly believes Tesla believes something he clear does not. . . .and you jump all over it like it was some kind of religious pronouncment. ROTFLMAO! You guys are so pitiful its hilarious.
Here is the source of Ball4’s ignorant declaration:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
Score has you now losing 3 to nothing awarding 2 points for the safety (1point for proving what Tesla does believe, and an extra point for proving how stupid you are)
Some advice for you MikeR. I think its time for you to give up.
bill, if you were really paying attention and understanding, my quoted Tesla paper proves ftop_t is wrong. The quote also applies to the motion of the moon as MikeR points out so ftop_t is wrong about moon motion, as is DREMT and yourself – as proven by Tesla paper.
Bill, you seem to have withdrawn your objection to Curtiss’s translation of the relevant section of Newton’s Principia, where it is stated that the Moon rotates on its axis. This is pleasing as you have provided no evidence to the contrary regarding Newton’s opinion about the matter.
Bill, have you actually tried to read Tesla’s paper that you linked to? It is an interesting concoction that doesn’t appear to make a lot of sense , particularly in light of his contradictory comments about the moon’s axial rotation.
Perhaps this is why his lunar rotation work has been totally ignored in the intervening century.
Bill, do you have your opinion as to why this work has had no traction in the world of astronomy and physics? Are the astronomers and physicists just too dumb or have they been brainwashed?
Bill, are you like some your colleagues , in possession of unique insights that you are desperate to share with us unfortunates. If so you are not being very successful and I think you need to work on your game,
Ball4 says:
bill, if you were really paying attention and understanding, my quoted Tesla paper proves ftop_t is wrong. The quote also applies to the motion of the moon as MikeR points out so ftop_t is wrong about moon motion, as is DREMT and yourself as proven by Tesla paper.
==================================
It appears you are wrong Ball4.
This quote here says you are wrong: ”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.”
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
You are just howling at the moon Ball4. If you want to prove Tesla’s proof wrong you should do it mathematically. Religious proclamation just doesn’t suffice in science.
MikeR says:
Bill, you seem to have withdrawn your objection to Curtisss translation of the relevant section of Newtons Principia, where it is stated that the Moon rotates on its axis. This is pleasing as you have provided no evidence to the contrary regarding Newtons opinion about the matter.
Bill, have you actually tried to read Teslas paper that you linked to? It is an interesting concoction that doesnt appear to make a lot of sense , particularly in light of his contradictory comments about the moons axial rotation.
==========================
Mike I get you are a bit slow on the uptake. Tesla does not say anything contradictory. Your imagined contradiction is simply a product of your own imagination.
Tesla is breaking down 2 concepts of orbital rotation and axial rotation. You are confounding that breakdown which applies to celestial bodies that do both orbit another body and spin on their own internal axis with orbital rotation alone. To make that error you imagine orbital rotation broken down into the same two components. You have zero evidence to back that up.
Tesla goes on to show the angular velocity would have to be doubled for it to do both at the same rate. Which of course is exactly what DREMT has said perhaps a hundred times.
=======================
========================
==========================
=========================
MikeR says:
Perhaps this is why his lunar rotation work has been totally ignored in the intervening century.
========================
Obviously it hasn’t been ignored there must be thousands of posts on it just in this one forum.
=======================
========================
==========================
=========================
MikeR says:
Bill, do you have your opinion as to why this work has had no traction in the world of astronomy and physics?
==========================
Sure I do Mike. It has no effect on what astronomers are doing in the 21st century or in previous centuries. This is a matter for some future time when it is found to be important, as an engineer finds it to be important in constructing various systems.
=======================
========================
==========================
=========================
MikeR says:
Are the astronomers and physicists just too dumb or have they been brainwashed?
====================
You keep imagining Mike that astronomers believe as fact that the moon rotates on its own axis, yet your own sources don’t say that. Yes some astronomers no doubt have been led to the believe that in a very unscientific way. The proof of that claim being the total lack of any scientific evidence brought forth contrary to the fact.
But folks writing about the moon rotating on its own axis isn’t an example of that, for the reasons I gave above because the moon does rotate on its own axis, which happens to be an external axis totally belonging to the moon as its axis.
Yet you fail to understand that nuance and the fact that no science exists to challenge it an that its well recognized and important science that is well established in kinematics.
=======================
========================
==========================
=========================
MikeR says:
Bill, are you like some your colleagues , in possession of unique insights that you are desperate to share with us unfortunates. If so you are not being very successful and I think you need to work on your game,
=============================
Its actually your game that needs work. All that is going on here is the recognition of a factor in science that someday will be important; that hardly anybody pays any attention to except of course wannabee astronomers who read books on astronomy without understanding and claim shiit that currently matters about nothing. The fact being here Mike when it matters about nothing is simply a statement that you don’t have a clue about what matters. Mark my words when somebody does find a reason for making the distinction, your point of view will have been proven wrong.
Tesla’s proof is correct bill 8:45pm; you have bungled your comment since bill has quoted the editor!! i.e. someone else not Tesla. Here are Tesla’s actual written words & figure description next to his math proof that for any arbitrary mass:
“the (orbiting massive object) Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
simple explanation Ball4. The editor is far more talented than you are.
Bill,
I am pleased you have once again demonstrated, by omission, that you concur with the translation of Newton’s Principia that indicated that Newton believed that the moon rotates on its axis. This has become the consensus view since the 1680s with the notable exception of Nikolai Tesla.
Here is Nikolai in the more coherent part of the piece that you linked to “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. Inapogee, 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. Inperigee, 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. The moon actually swings on the axis passing thru its center of gravity on which it is supported like a ball on a string. The forces involved in these pendular movements are incomparably smaller than those required to effect changes in orbital velocity. If we estimate the radius of gyration of the satellite at 600 miles and its mean distance from the earth at 240,000 miles, then the energy necessary to rotate it once in a month would be only ( 600 / 240,000 )2= 1 / 160,000 of the kinetic energy of the orbital movement.”
Bill, what do you think about this explanation that refers to Newton’s explanation being true to a “degree” but then goes into a strange explanation that involves the Moon that “swings on the axis passing thru its center of gravity” which is a tacit and probably ad hoc admission that the Moon does indeed rotate on its axis.
His calculation at the end appears to be correct . It is well known in the astronomical community that the energy and angular momentum of axial rotation is much less than the corresponding energy and angular momentum of the orbital motion.
This does not mean the energy and angular momentum of the axial rotation of the Moon is zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why Tesla’s nonsense is so contradictory and most likely why the theory has been ignored over the last 100 years.
The editor is a reporter/journalist you quote bill, Tesla gets the science correct for any generalized mass:
“the (orbiting massive object) Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Ball4 says:
The editor is a reporter/journalist you quote bill, Tesla gets the science correct for any generalized mass:
“the (orbiting massive object) Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
====================
thats a fake quote that you added stuff to Ball4. If you are going to add stuff you need evidence to back it up.
MikeR says:
I am pleased you have once again demonstrated, by omission, that you concur with the translation of Newtons Principia that indicated that Newton believed that the moon rotates on its axis. This has become the consensus view since the 1680s with the notable exception of Nikolai Tesla.
======================
Incorrect Mike you have provided zero evidence of what Newton believed.
Simply picking somebody who believes Newton believed that is zero evidence. the guy probably wasn’t even alive in Newton’s time so he is just making stuff up.
Here is Nikolai in the more coherent part of the piece that you linked to 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. Inapogee, 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. Inperigee, 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. The moon actually swings on the axis passing thru its center of gravity on which it is supported like a ball on a string. The forces involved in these pendular movements are incomparably smaller than those required to effect changes in orbital velocity. If we estimate the radius of gyration of the satellite at 600 miles and its mean distance from the earth at 240,000 miles, then the energy necessary to rotate it once in a month would be only ( 600 / 240,000 )2= 1 / 160,000 of the kinetic energy of the orbital movement.
Bill, what do you think about this explanation that refers to Newtons explanation being true to a degree but then goes into a strange explanation that involves the Moon that swings on the axis passing thru its center of gravity which is a tacit and probably ad hoc admission that the Moon does indeed rotate on its axis.
His calculation at the end appears to be correct . It is well known in the astronomical community that the energy and angular momentum of axial rotation is much less than the corresponding energy and angular momentum of the orbital motion.
This does not mean the energy and angular momentum of the axial rotation of the Moon is zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why Teslas nonsense is so contradictory and most likely why the theory has been ignored over the last 100 years.
Mike says:
His calculation at the end appears to be correct . It is well known in the astronomical community that the energy and angular momentum of axial rotation is much less than the corresponding energy and angular momentum of the orbital motion.
This does not mean the energy and angular momentum of the axial rotation of the Moon is zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why Teslas nonsense is so contradictory and most likely why the theory has been ignored over the last 100 years.
=================================================
Wrong on all counts Mike. If Tesla’s calculations are correct he is correct in saying if the moon is going to spin on its own axis as well the total energy would be greater. One can prove it by comparing the calculations to the angular momentum of a merry-go-round.
And of course you remain incorrect about Tesla being ignored. He isn’t being ignored this entire thread over several topics is but one piece of evidence of that. You have been all over it, obviously terrified of the possibility he could be right.
bill 12:29am, I added the description of Tesla’s work in Fig. 4 – see Fig 4 to learn the stuff in parentheses is accurate to Tesla’s depiction proving the orbital arbitrary mass motion.
See Tesla’s wheel depiction to learn Tesla proves the moon rotates on its own axis through his Fig. 4 depiction of internal point C. Tesla tells us the moon non-rotation is an illusion & dispels that abstract idea with his wheel showing viual and math proof the moon rotates on its own axis through Fig. 4 point C.
1:05am, Tesla’s calculations are correct since he is correct in writing math and showing visually with his wheel how the moon must spin on its own axis thru C since the total energy would be greater when rotating balls are “fixt” keeping same face toward the center of orbit. In compliance with Tesla’s Fig 4:
“the (orbiting massive object – moon or rotating balls) Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass (Tesla’s wheel assembly) Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
all4 says:
bill 12:29am, I added the description of Tesla’s work in Fig. 4 – see Fig 4 to learn the stuff in parentheses is accurate to Tesla’s depiction proving the orbital arbitrary mass motion.
===============================
Why should I learn anything added by you Ball4. You have zero credentials for adding anything to anything.
In fact even if you had an education you should know when you add something you should notate the source. You are a double failure on this.
As I wrote the source is: Tesla’s Fig 4.
Bill,
Poor old Tesla, if only he had stuck to his many strengths, he may not have died penniless and in relative obscurity.
His libration explanation recognised the elliptical orbit of the Moon but paradoxically included a reference to a ball on a string which involves circular motion* ( i.e. the length of the string doesn’t change as it rotates) , hence the contradictions.
By the way nowhere in the discussion of libration does he say
“if the moon is going to spin on its own axis as well the total energy would be greater”. I think he makes this claim earlier before he finishes with his attempt to explain libration by demonstrating the well known fact that energy of rotation is much smaller than the orbiting energy. Bizarre and contradictory.
“And of course you remain incorrect about Tesla being ignored. He isnt being ignored this entire thread over several topics is but one piece of evidence of that. You have been all over it, obviously terrified of the possibility he could be right.”
My terror is palpable, butt I think I indicated earlier that he was ignored by the astronomers and physicists and his only advocates were the crackpots that you encounter on the Internet.
p.s. Bill your grandiose claims that you understand Newton’s Principia better than an astronomer who has actually read the text is highly amusing. Have you thought about joining the circus? There is room in DREM’s clown car for one more.
* his infamous rigid bespoke model is also totally incompatible with elliptical motion.
Ball4 says:
As I wrote the source is: Tesla’s Fig 4.
===============================
Your problem Ball4 is you can’t explain it without your own notation. If you read Tesla you will note that his conclusions don’t match yours. You had the same problem with Madhavi where you would flunk her course for not absorbing the lesson which she was teaching.
MikeR says:
Poor old Tesla, if only he had stuck to his many strengths, he may not have died penniless and in relative obscurity.
============================
Thats just your own ignorance and jealousy clouding your point of view as it seems you are wont to do.
Dying in obscurity is what you and I will do. But not Tesla. He was ahead of his time and it wasn’t until a couple of decades after his death he was highly honored by the science community.
You are just trying to catch up with what is already known and not doing too well at it .
MikeR says:
His libration explanation recognised the elliptical orbit of the Moon but paradoxically included a reference to a ball on a string which involves circular motion* ( i.e. the length of the string doesnt change as it rotates) , hence the contradictions.
================================
See there you go parading your ignorance of science. Of course every string with a spinning ball on the end changes its length during a spin as nothing spins in a perfect circle and nothing is resistant to stretch. Heck man this is high school physics!!!
How much stretch? Well depends upon the elasticity of the string!!
MikeR says:
By the way nowhere in the discussion of libration does he say
if the moon is going to spin on its own axis as well the total energy would be greater.
==================
Thats exactly what he is saying Mike!
MikeR says:
I think he makes this claim earlier before he finishes with his attempt to explain libration by demonstrating the well known fact that energy of rotation is much smaller than the orbiting energy. Bizarre and contradictory.
======================
Tesla is correct there. There is the angular momentum of an orbiting body. To have an internal axial rotation in addition requires its own source of energy in whatever direction that rotation is going to take. This is really basic stuff Mike. Internal axial rotation is just a wrong concept left over from the days of flat earth and hasn’t changed because of a lack of an impelling reason to change it. Kind of like how the universe had no beginning until it had a beginning in the big bang. Thats something that gave Einstein a good laugh at all the science sycophants objecting to creation saying the stars and universe had no creation as it had always been there. Then they discovered the red shift and suddenly the universe had a beginning and Einstein got a good laugh out of that.
MikeR says:
And of course you remain incorrect about Tesla being ignored. He isnt being ignored this entire thread over several topics is but one piece of evidence of that. You have been all over it, obviously terrified of the possibility he could be right.
My terror is palpable, butt I think I indicated earlier that he was ignored by the astronomers and physicists and his only advocates were the crackpots that you encounter on the Internet.
===============
that of course what a crackpot is . . . .is in your ignorant opinion!
MikeR says:
p.s. Bill your grandiose claims that you understand Newtons Principia better than an astronomer who has actually read the text is highly amusing. Have you thought about joining the circus? There is room in DREMs clown car for one more.
=================
LMAO! You just can’t learn anything including English. I never said I understood astronomy better than the guy who wrote the article you provided. I don’t need to because the moon does rotate on its own axis. . . .an axis that is external and uniquely the moon’s on no other objects axis.
You just didn’t get what the astronomer said and erected a strawman in his mouth and interpreted for yourself what the pronoun ‘its’ refers to. Thats both bad science and bad English.
If bill reads through Tesla’s wheel assembly example, then bill will understand that Tesla’s conclusions demonstrate the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of Earth as in Fig. 4. bill’s problem is reading Tesla’s editor and NOT Tesla’s own detail work.
As far as Madhavi, I’ve quoted Madhavi’s exact words, bill has not done so since bill uses his own incorrect wording.
Bill -“See there you go parading your ignorance of science. Of course every string with a spinning ball on the end changes its length during a spin as nothing spins in a perfect circle and nothing is resistant to stretch. Heck man this is high school physics!!!
How much stretch? Well depends upon the elasticity of the string!!”
Highly amusing* work Bill.Do you write your own material?
It is very unfortunate that Tesla’s reference to the ball on a string didn’t specify the elasticity of the string. Very strange.
Please post details of your truly remarkable experiment where you have managed to rotate a ball elliptically using an elastic tether of some sort.
Which focus did you swing it from? Did you have an assistant at the other focus to allow you to wrap the tether around to form an ellipse? What was the inclination to the horizontal? How did you manage to vary the speed when the ball was closest and farthest while spinning fast enough to keep the ball aloft?
What appendage did you use to rotate the ball?
If you have documentary evidence of your feat such as video, and with an appropriate answer to the previous question, I will send it on to this mob.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppetry_of_the_Penis
Your elliptically orbiting balls would be a wonderful addition to the show.
You should also include with your video the following information.
The stress-strain characteristics of your chrum, which is of utmost importance . In particular what is its Young’s modulus and breaking strain? How temperature dependent are these characteristics? The latter is important as “shrinkage” can make or break the show.
Answers to these Important questions are vital if you want a lengthy and lucrative career in this business. Good luck and hope you can make it in the big time.
* Bill, my comments are a vain attempt to match the hilarity of your comments. Unfortunately my efforts can never match you comedic talents.
MikeR says:
Bill -“See there you go parading your ignorance of science. Of course every string with a spinning ball on the end changes its length during a spin as nothing spins in a perfect circle and nothing is resistant to stretch. Heck man this is high school physics!!!
How much stretch? Well depends upon the elasticity of the string!!”
Highly amusing* work Bill.Do you write your own material?
…..* Bill, my comments are a vain attempt to match the hilarity of your comments. Unfortunately my efforts can never match you comedic talents.
==================================
Geez Mike you are really really dense.
So you think real physics is comedic? How amusing.
By your own arguments you prove you are married to concepts beyond reality. Very typical for fresh out of school greenhorns.
You criticize the non-spinner argument because the moon librates as a result of its elliptical orbit. Its all perspective and an unreal movement by the moon.
But there is a miniscule real libration that causes the moon to vary the speed by which particles of the moon vary its speed around your imagined internal axis, solely brought about via the string of gravity from its real axis.
Conceptually I understand Tesla’s argument and the differences he sees between a ball on a string and the moon. Whereas you and Ball4 continue to spout ignorant disparate conceptual ideas about it that apply only in explicit instances.
Ignoring Tesla and make an argument for why you run afoul of kinematics, a version of science developed to return conceptual thinkers back to the real and practical world.
Tesla is a towering figure in the world of visionary foresight and as time goes all that has occurred is his ideas being more highly elevated and often eventually established in technology.
You can try to belittle him but it leaves a huge question. If Tesla died as an obscure, broken man; how are we going to describe how you died?
Bill,
As to my death, the rumours are highly exaggerated.
As to the rest of your comments, I am happy to let them stand as a testament to your sanity.
Mike that works as good as a concession.
bill, it is you ignoring Tesla’s work in his wheel assembly example showing the moon and ball on string rotate on their own internal axes once per orbit of the external axis. Aligning with Tesla’s unknown editor and/or verbal translator is where bill goes wrong.
Indeed you are an imaginative little boy there Ball4. Perhaps when you grow up you will learn to pay a bit more attention to what people are telling you. Obviously, Tesla made it clear as a bell that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, yet you keep trying to twist his words and argument into a different conclusion.
bill, it is Tesla’s editor twisting words away from what Tesla shows in his wheel assembly example, not me. Go argue with the editor.
Or argue with commenters here by showing that Tesla makes a mistake in his wheel assembly example where Tesla demonstrates Earth’s moon (or ball on string) rotates once on its own internal axis through Tesla’s C per orbit of the external axis through Tesla’s O.
TM,
You wrote –
* . . . because the moon spins and orbits freely in space commanded by the pull of earths gravity. *
So the Earths gravity commands the Moon to spin? Ever hear of a guy called Newton, who showed that such maunderings were nonsensical? Gravity machines dont exist. No gravity induced spinning. None.
Youre a few hundred years behind the times. Move up to the 17th century, at least,
Climate: here’s what’s in the pipeline for the UK:
https://www.climateassembly.uk/report
Upthread, I had to correct bobdroege, again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552628
He didn’t understand conservation of energy. If the mass of an orbiting object is suddenly reduced half, it’s orbital speed increases by 1.4:
KE before = KE after
M(Vi)^2 = (M/2)(Vf)^2
(Vf)^2 = 2(Vi)^2
Vf = 1.4Vi
(I’m going to have to start a record of all the times I have to correct bob. He lives in that river in Egypt….)
ClintR,
My point was escape velocity is not dependent on mass.
bobd…”My point was escape velocity is not dependent on mass”.
Putting this forward for discussion rather than as a rebuttal because I’m not too clear on the situation. We are obviously talking about the effect of gravitational force on a mass, and overcoming that force.
In the situation of freefall, if you take a 10,000 kg mass and a 1 kg mass, dropping them at the same time, they will fall at the same rate. Had not thought about why but just discovered the reason and it’s pretty cool, IMHO.
It’s about inertia. The effect of gravity on a larger mass is inversely proportional to the mass. In fact the 9.8m/s^2 figure we see for acceleration comes from the 9.8 newtons of force applied to a kilogram of mass.
It’s important to realize that mass has no particular weight. A kilogram of a substance will not weigh the same on the Moon as it does on the Earth. It’s the gravitational force that creates weight, therefore weight is actually a force exerted on a surface due to gravitational attraction.
The acceleration is the measure, so a = F/m. It just so happens that F varies with the mass so that no matter the mass, the force will vary till a = 9.8 m/s^2. The ratio of F/m is a constant in our gravitational field.
Same with a mass like a car, if you try pushing on it to get it rolling, the inertia presented by the mass is large for most humans and it takes a lot of force to get the car moving. If you had to pick the car up with a skyhook, it would require a heck of a lot more force than would be required to pick up baby sitting on the ground.
All in all, you have to overcome the force of gravity to reach an escape velocity. Velocity only comes into it when sufficient force has been applied to accelerate a mass to a constant velocity. In essence, it’s not the velocity that matters its the force applied to overcome Earth’s gravitational force.
In that sense, mass matters a lot for escape velocity. You simply won’t reach it unless you supply sufficient force to overcome the inertia of a given mass from the surface upward.
To get a Saturn rocket to the velocity required to escape Earth’s gravity requires a tremendous amount of force at the surface. As the rocket gets higher in altitude there is a downhill effect in that gravity is getting less and less. Therefore the engineers at NASA must know the force required to accelerate the rocket to such a point that an escape velocity can be reached.
Velocity comes into the equation only because constant acceleration is not required to get the rocket free of Earth’s gravity. At a certain point, you can back of the acceleration, hence the force, producing a constant velocity.
brings up an interesting situation with the effect of gravity on air molecules in the atmosphere. Air molecules have such a tiny mass that the effect of gravity on them is very small. Obviously it’s enough near the surface to compact the gases and create a higher air pressure.
As gravity weaken with altitude, however, that small change will have a much larger effect on air molecules than on other masses, hence a decrease of air pressure with altitude. That’s why I object to the notion of the lapse rate being a cause rather than an effect. I think the lapse rate is a product of gravity and not a cause in itself of lower temperatures with increasing altitude.
meant to include my source for freefall theory.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Free-Fall-and-Air-Resistance
Gordon,
Yes it takes more force to get a heavier object to escape velocity, but that velocity is not dependent on the mass of the object.
Escape velocity = SQROOT(2*G*MassofEarth/radiusofEarth)
=SQROOT(2*6.673*10^-11Nmeters^2/kg^2*5.98*10^24kg/6.38*10^6meters)
=11 kilometers/sec
bob,
Well done. Now cut and paste a testable GHE hypothesis. Cant find something to cut? What a pity.
Swenson,
Already did that with no need to cut and paste.
I see now you move the goalposts, requiring the hypothesis to be “testable”
It is testable and we are testing is as we speak.
Go look up the scientific method, and then and only then get back to me.
Otherwise I will recognize your posts for the gibberish they are.
B,
So you say, bob, so you say.
Complete rubbish, of course. You cant even describe the GHE in such a way as to allow a testable GHE hypothesis to be formulated.
Of course a hypothesis must be testable, you donkey! As Richard Feynman said –
* It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. *
Alarmist donkeys cant even say where this GHE can be observed or measured! They seem to think that CO2 has a property of making thermometers hotter! You are obviously as deluded as Gavin Schmidt, who thinks he is a scientist, or Michael Mann, who thinks is a Nobel Prize winner!
Keep on dreaming, bob. Maybe other alarmist donkeys will dream right along with you.
Swenson,
Did your pet monkey type this?
“Complete rubbish, of course. You cant even describe the GHE in such a way as to allow a testable GHE hypothesis to be formulated.”
It’s being tested by various groups, one of which is Dr. Roy’s team that provides the graph at the top of the page, instruments in space measuring the temperature with fancy thermometers.
“Alarmist donkeys cant even say where this GHE can be observed or measured!”
Yes we can, in the atmosphere, part of which you are breathing.
Thermometers are getting hotter (sic)*, read the graph at the top of the page.
Correlation is not causation, that is freshman chemistry, but once you have a mechanism for how raising CO2 can raise the average temperature of the surface of the Earth.
*We know the thermometers aren’t actually getting hotter, they are just indicating higher temperatures most of the time, leading to a higher average temperature.
Here, I washed your binky for you.
bob,
You still havent managed to describe the GHE, have you? So these wonderful groups are busy testing something they cant describe, is that it?
You attempt to assert * Correlation is not causation, that is freshman chemistry, but once you have a mechanism for how raising CO2 can raise the average temperature of the surface of the Earth. *
Apart from the incomprehensibility of your sentence, you still cant provide the mechanism to which you allude! Obviously, you dont want to accept the reality that nobody has managed to describe the mythical GHE in such a way as to enable a testable GHE hypothesis to be formed.
Off you go, bob. Do some more digging. Try the NASA website – nope, no help there. How about Michael Mann? Nope. The IPCC? Nope, they even go so far as to say that is impossible to predict future climate states! Sad, isnt it?
Swenson,
Here is a quiz.
Tell me what this statement means.
“Nope, they even go so far as to say that is impossible to predict future climate states! Sad, isnt it?”
You got a handle on what they mean by that statement, or just what you think it means.
One may not equal the other, you may be wrong, not understanding what that means.
And as to this
“Apart from the incomprehensibility of your sentence, you still cant provide the mechanism to which you allude!”
I already provide the mechanism, it’s the fact that CO2 abxorbs infrared particularly well in certain specific wavelengths.
I’ll await your retort that everything above absolute zero emits and abxorbs infrared radiation, but that opinion and 5 bucks will get you a starbucks.
bob,
Heres a quiz for you –
Are you as stupid as you appear, or stupider?
I’m not as stupid as a denier.
That means you Swenson.
bob, please stop trolling.
bobdroege wrote –
* Swenson,
Previously you were asking for a greenhouse gas hypothesis and you were provided one.
Now you don’t want one.
Did you spit your binky? *
Bob remains trapped in his fantasy. He cannot backup his lies. Maybe he is confused, and doesnt know the difference between the GHE (the effect), and greenhouse gas (which is undefined and unmeasurable nonsense).
So, still no testable GHE hypothesis. Bob still confusing his fantasy with reality, to the point where his comments lapse into incomprehensibility!
Whats the greenhouse gas hypothesis, bob? Are you stupid enough to believe that increasing the amount of any atmospheric constituent will make thermometers hotter? Are you stupid enough to believe Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize.
Bob cannot face reality, it seems. Poor bob, so sad, too bad.
Yes, I am stupid enough, how about you?
Gavin Schmidt is a scientist and Michael Mann was part of an organization that won a Nobel Prize.
Why do you need to distort facts?
Are you a pathological liar?
As for the greenhouse effect correlate the Keeling curve with the graph at the top of the page.
The GHE hypothesis being raising the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature as measured by the good Dr. Roy Spencer.
You do know how to do that using excel or your favorite statistical software package?
bob,
Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician. Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner in a court document. The Nobel Committee pointed out that he was not entitled to portray himself as he did. Twist and squirm as you may, pretend I said things which I didn’t – it makes no difference.
Correlation mey mean nothing. Unfortunately, your GHE hypothesis is not supported by any reproducible experiments. Therefore, it remains speculation.
Thermometers measure temperature. Nothing to do with CO2 concentration.
Go back to dreaming, bob.
Swenson,
Who said Mathematicians can’t be scientists?
Is that on of your rules, the fact that Schmidt has a degree in Mathematics is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is a scientist.
And the fact remains that Michael Mann was part of an organization that was awarded a Nobel Prize.
The hypothesis is still a hypothesis, the presence or lack of data to support that hypothesis doesn’t invalidate the hypothesis.
But the fact is, that mankind is doing an experiment on the atmosphere of the Earth by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
The Keeling curve is the measurement of CO2 and the graph at the top of the page is global temperature, the correlation between the two is part of the experimental data. It is reproducible, there are other sites measuring both sets of data.
It is no longer speculation that raising CO2 in the atmosphere raises temperature.
bob,
One definition
* A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. *
Climate donkeys claim to have hypotheses, but dont write them down, so nobody can criticise them! Very clever!
Of course a mathematician can be a scientist, you ninny! Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. And the fact remains that the Nobel Committee told Michael Mann that the certificate he fabricated was worthless.
Correlation is not causation. The physical properties of CO2 contain no reference to the ability to make thermometers hotter! Donkey crap might, and you certainly have an abundant supply.
Swenson,
You are spitting your binky because you can’t find the hypotheses that the climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt have written down.
Just because you can’t find them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I for one have provided such a hypothesis.
Gavin Schmidt has written or co-authored over 100 peer reviewed scientific papers so that makes him a scientist.
“The physical properties of CO2 contain no reference to the ability to make thermometers hotter!”
That’s just gibberish, did your pet monkey type that for you?
bob,
Dont be a complete donkey.
You havent managed to provide a useful description of the GHE, so your talk of having a hypothesis for a mythical effect is just more evidence that you are delusional.
As to gibberish, any claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, is gibberish indeed.
Back to your dreams, bob. Obviously, reality is too much for you.
Swenson,
Do get things right.
I said adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the average temperature of the Earth. That’s a hypothesis, but now you want what you call a useful hypothesis, how is that hypothesis not useful?
The next step would be to design an experiment using that hypothesis, let’s see what your monkey can type on your keyboard.
But before you conclude that something is gibberish, the experiment is well on its way, and preliminary results show a temperature increase with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
I said nothing about putting CO2 between the Sun and a Thermometer, it’s not just one thermometer, it’s the average surface temperature of the Earth, well except for Dr. Roy’s measurement which are the average temperature of the atmosphere.
bob,
OK. Now devise your experiment. Reproducible, of course. You cant even figure out which temperature you are measuring (you mention three, all different, and all unmeasurable).
Alarmist donkey. Go eat some grass. Pleasant dreams.
Poor deluded denier,
The experiment is already underway.
Monthly updates on this site.
bob, please stop trolling.
Both GISS and NOAA global temp anomalies dropped by 0.09C from Sep to Oct, but UAH only dropped by 0.03C.
I guess UAH are fudging the data to hide the cooling….
barry is getting worried. The demise of a cult is never a pretty site.
barry
I’m afraid you are just wrong here.
According to the most reliable and even authoritative nonsense generator on this blog, UAH is not the source for “hiding the cooling”.
It has to be NOAA. No way around!
They manipulate the 60 GHz O2 microwave emissions before delivering the data to Huntsville, AL. That is 101% certain!
I thought you were aware of the evidence of this fact.
Best rgds from Germoney
J.-P. D.
barry…”Both GISS and NOAA global temp anomalies dropped by 0.09C from Sep to Oct, but UAH only dropped by 0.03C”.
A difference of 5/100ths of a degree C. Wow!!!
A comparison of two data sets that have nothing in common. Wow!!!
A comparison of fudgers and cheater (NOAA/GISS) to scientists with integrity (UAH). Double Wow!!!
Dear DREMT,
If an object rotates, what axis does it rotate around if it’s not its rotational axis?
Precisely. For instance, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round’s rotational axis passes through the center of the merry-go-round. It has no rotational axis going through its center of mass.
DREMT got lost from his mom in the fairground as a little boy , forgotten spinning on the unicorn ride for six hours , has nightmares about it ever since
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.” – Bindidon.
Bindidon explaining DREMT’s 9:59am: “And that is the reason why all toy examples fail..this toy example is NO correct analogy to our Moon’s behavior”
Nonspinners like DREMT are proven wrong by the moon’s day/night cycles caused by rotation on moon’s own axis per DREMT’s own linked ref.s:
“The Moon..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.”
No. He got thrown off the Tilt-a-whirl and hit his head.
No, he just understands that objects don’t automatically rotate about their own axis just because they are rotating about an external axis.
80% certainty forecast, besides being a complete oxymoron since there is no such thing as 80% certainty, that’s probability or uncertainty, the only certainty is 100%.
Declaring your superior accuracy before it gets confirmed by anything takes the prize.
https://bit.ly/36z1dGS
bobd…”Gavin Schmidt is a scientist and Michael Mann was part of an organization that won a Nobel Prize”.
Schmidt is not a scientist, he is a mathematician who programs climate models…and badly. Climate models are uvalidated hence cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method.
John Christy of UAH has part of that Nobel prize and he is 1000 times the scientists of Mann. John has a degree in climate sciente whereas Mann is a geologist.
Michael Mann, Education:
1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics
1991 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Physics
1991 M.S. Yale University, Department of Physics
1989 A.B. (double), University of California-Berkeley, Applied Math, Physics (Honors)
His PhD thesis was “A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system”, and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year.
That’s geophysics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics
Silly snowflake Svante, you have so much to learn.
Whenever you see something preceding “physics”, such as “geophysics”, “astrophysics”, or “metaphysics”, it means it is NOT physics.
S,
And a loser, liar, scofflaw and deadbeat. Appears to be delusionally psychotic into the bargain. Alarmist donkeys appear to worship his ability to talk to dead trees.
Is he your hero?
He does look a bit sleazy.
Gordon says he fudged the data.
Still, his results have been reproduced again and again,
so I guess he got lucky and his wild guess was right.
S,
Maybe his worshippers used the same assumptions. Who cares? The whole climate charade has produced precisely nothing of use to the population at large.
Look at the herd of climate donkeys demonstrating to * stop climate change *! Dont these dimwits realise that nobody has the faintest idea what impact humans might have on the chaotic system which is the Earth as we know it?
Svante Arrhenius thought that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in a more amenable climate. Nicer, in other words. Are you saying Arrhenius was wrong? Quite apart from the fact that his speculation about a GHE has never been backed up by reproducible experiment, and is physically nonsensical, one mans nicer climate may be anothers nightmare.
The future is unknowable. Even the IPCC accepts this about future climate. You just refuse to face reality! Good for you!
Keep dreaming.
“GHE has never been backed up by reproducible experiment”.
We did the experiment and it turned out like Svante said.
Shhhhhh.
Now thats funny. Svante is a sock puppet!
Svante what other names are you going by here?
I don’t use any other name here, but I agree to large extent with Nate, bobdrogue, MikeR, Tim Folkerts, E. Swanson, Norman, Bindidon, …
… and barry of course although he is much more skeptical than me, in fact he’s so skeptical he reminds me of good scientists.
So you agree with Norman and Bindidon that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame?
I don’t mind if you model your wooden horse that way, it will match reality any way.
That simpleton analogy fails to match observations when you apply it to the moon.
Just answer “yes” or “no”, Svante. Do you agree with them?
And no, it was not ever meant to be an exact model of the moon’s motion. Stop bashing the same straw man every time.
Svante, DREMT is writing DREMT’s own false words instead of Bindidon’s actual full comment.
Svante, Ball4 is another obsessive, stalking troll.
Svante says:
I don’t use any other name here,
=================================
Then how do you explain this post?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555310
Swenson said:
I’m not surprised Ball4.
If you did Svante why didn’t you publish it? You could be famous since nobody else can seem to do it.
Svante didn’t need to publish it, bill, since many have already done so.
Svante cannot ever give a straight answer.
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.” – Bindidon.
Bindidon 9:25am: “And that is the reason why all toy examples fail: the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
DREMT, of course, always fails to clip the first part Bindidon comment explaining the reason DREMT’s “toy examples fail”.
Here is a link to the full comment, Svante, so you can read it in full context, and the discussion that followed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552702
ClintR says:
November 13, 2020 at 9:46 AM
Snape, “tidal locking” is the nonsense they made up because they knew it was ridiculous to claim Moon was rotating about its axis, when we can clearly see it is not. So they made up “tidal locking” to confuse the issue, and fool idiots like you.
I think you were the one that supplied the link for this: “What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
I’m going to debunk that nonsense in a few days. I’m giving rats a chance to desert their sinking ship. Do you still cling to the “tidal locking” nonsense, or do you want to save yourself?
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Tonto (ClintR), so no proof yet?
I suspect this is what your process looks like: https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-Laboratory
ClintR says:
November 16, 2020 at 5:03 AM
The Moon issue is now over. The idiots believe Moon is rotating about its axis because EVERYTHING is rotating about its axis. They define things to match their beliefs. That ain’t science.
Very soon the debunk of the “tidal locking” nonsense will be published, on this very blog. The idiots will have nothing to cling to. Moon is not rotating about its axis, and likely never has.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Tonto, this answers one of the questions concerning how a person could get the Moon’s spin so wrong. It is now clear that when you say “Moon is not rotating about its axis, and likely never has,” you have extrapolated back to the moon’s origin and determined that it never had a spin component; the Moon was just “made” that way! That is the funniest thing I’ve heard from your side yet; funnier than the business about ” The moon does not really have any Poles.”
Snape (Tyson, Doris, Ramona) is going crazy and I haven’t even published the debunking of “tidal locking” yet,
Like several of the other idiots, she’s not sleeping well lately.
ClintR,
“I haven’t even published the debunking of “tidal locking” yet,”
And you are not going to debunk any tidal locking.
You probably have the definition mixed up with something else.
The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, you going to debunk that?
Thought so.
I don’t subscribe to the National Enquirer, so I may miss the debunk publication.
bobdroege, a “Spinner”, said:
“Yes everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis because it is connected to the Earth which is spinning on its own axis.”
and even went on to state:
“Everything on the Earth rotates around two axes, one going through the center of the Earth, and one on its own axis.”
😂
Somehow just repeating what I posted is some sort of a debunking.
Who’d a thunk it would be that easy.
When I took the wooden horse analogy to its logical conclusion I did so as an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. I wasn’t anticipating that anybody would actually defend the absurdity! So now all I have to do is point and laugh.
Well, it didn’t go as you planned, did it.
You thought it was absurd, you were wrong.
I don’t see many rushing in to agree with you, bob.
DREMT,
That doesn’t matter, it’s not a popularity contest.
I’m just trying to see who out there is willing to debase themselves to the extent that you and MikeR have. Apparently it is just you two.
DREMT,
I believe there are more, but I won’t call anyone out.
I think I’ll just wait for ClintR debunking of the synchronous orbit.
That should be fun.
Or funny.
I hope there are more people who agree with you, as I would like to laugh at them, too.
Join me in laughing at DREMT!
Yes, join bob in believing that every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis. You can laugh maniacally as you rock back and forth. Of course, you will be rotating on your own axis as you do so, so be careful that you don’t fall over.
Poor bob doesn’t understand what the debunking will be about. I have advertised the uncoming debunking of the “tidal locking” nonsense, but poor bob is talking about “synchronous orbit” which doesn’t even make sense.
Poor bob. He’s as stupid as Svante and Snape.
Perhaps you are intending to debunk both synchronous orbits and tidal locking?
Tell me which one is a subset of the other one?
Presumably bob means “synchronous rotation”…who knows?
DREMT,
Who knows?
Obviously you and ClintR don’t know.
You would know if you knew the difference between tidal locking and synchronous rotation.
bob cannot even admit he got the name wrong.
DREMT,
The two terms tidal locking and synchronous rotation mean almost the same thing, but one is a subset of the other, I’ll leave it to you to figure that out.
“Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking, captured rotation and spin–orbit locking), in the best-known case, occurs when an orbiting astronomical body always has the same face toward the object it is orbiting. 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.”
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
bob, “synchronous rotation” is the term used to describe their erroneous belief that the moon spins on its axis at the same rate it orbits the Earth, and in the same direction as the orbit. “Tidal locking” involves the mechanism by which this “synchronous rotation” supposedly takes place.
All I was correcting you on was the fact you mistakenly called it “synchronous orbit”. You were wrong, again.
Nope, the two terms are synonymous, they mean the same thing except for cases like Mercury.
Tidally locking is defined as when a satellite keeps the same face towards the host, and does not include the mechanism.
“The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, which means that it always shows one face to our planet. In fact, this is the case for most the large moons in the Solar System. Whats the process going on to make this happen?”
from https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
Making shit up again are we?
Read your Wikipedia entry, bob. “Tidal locking” involves the mechanism by which this “synchronous rotation” supposedly takes place. There is an entire section labelled "Mechanism".
The two terms are synonymous in that a "tidally-locked moon" is a moon that is in the so-called "synchronous rotation", yes.
DREMT,
So now you admit that I was correct!
“All I was correcting you on was the fact you mistakenly called it “synchronous orbit”. You were wrong, again.”
Which also means the same thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_orbit#:~:text=A%20synchronous%20orbit%20is%20an,of%20rotation%20as%20that%20body.
I stand corrected, bob.
I should have said synchronous rotation instead of synchronous orbit, but you are still more wrong saying the Moon doesn’t rotate.
No, I think you take the cake for "wrongness" by saying that every single object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating.
DREMT,
Yes, everything on Earth is rotating on its axis, because the Earth is rotating on its axis, and the photo of the stars forming arcs proves that.
Got that, it’s proved by the photo.
The photo proves the axis is going through the camera lens.
No, bob. The Earth is rotating on its own axis, hence everything on the planet is rotating about that axis. That is all the photo proves.
The photo shows the axis going through the lens.
No, bob. The photo shows the axis of rotation goes through the Earth.
nate…”Wouldnt it be great if the TEAM could offer up some proof that objects on the Earth are not rotating about their own axes?”
Talk about red-herring arguments. We have been defending the physics of a unique phenomenon, the lunar orbital physics. It’s particularly unique because the same face of the Moon always points toward the Earth. No one defending this, Clint, Dremt, Bill Hunter, Swenson and myself have argued against the definition of general rotation about an axis, whether internal nor external.
We don’t need to prove that bodies legitimately rotating about an axis are not rotating. We have agreed from the outset that bodies with angular momentum about an axis are indeed rotating about that axis. It’s the spinners who need to prove that a wooden horse bolted to a carousel platform is rotating about a local axis.
The non-spinners have argued that the Moon is not rotating around its local imaginary axis. The spinners have bent the meaning of rotation in a desperate attempt to make it appear as if the Moon is rotating about its axis in a different frame of reference. What they fail to grasp is that local rotation is defined as an angular velocity/momentum about an axis and that any body in which that does not apply in one frame of reference is not rotating in any frame of reference.
The basis of the spinner argument is that the Moon’s near face, or any face, points in different directions as the Moon orbits. They regard that as proof that the Moon is rotating about its local axis. Although there is no proof that the Moon has the required local angular velocity to rotate about its imaginary axis, the spinners seem to think there is some magical alternative that allows them to define an orbital property as rotation about a local axis.
It has been demonstrated clearly to the spinners that a lunar face points in different directions throughout the orbit for other reasons. It has been demonstrated that a jetliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet under its own power cannot possibly rotate about its COG or it will crash. Yet it shows the same face to the Earth, like the Moon, and it points in all directions of the compass as it rotates.
That motion is due to the properties of the orbit. The lunar orbit is a resultant path created when the Moon’s linear momentum is slowly nudged in an orbit by Earth’s gravitational field. That explains the constant change of direction and it applies equally to the jetliner under its own power maintaining 35.000 feet at a constant velocity.
I’d say the non-spinners have proved their case and the spinners are trying to save face by conjuring ridiculous sci-fi explanations to back their losing case.
It should be noted that spinners apply the same bad logic to anthropogenic warming THEORY hence their confusion on the subject.
“I’d say the non-spinners have proved their case and the spinners are trying to save face by conjuring ridiculous sci-fi explanations to back their losing case.”
The “Spinners” are currently saying that every single object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis. That would definitely be a “ridiculous sci-fi explanation to back a losing case”…
dremt…”The Spinners are currently saying that every single object on the planet is rotating on its own axis…”
MikeR said in one response that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. In that kind of delusion, I suppose they can see almost anything.
The non-spinners have NOT proved anything, their moon nonrotating on its own axis theory is debubunked merely by observing the moon exhibits day/night cycles.
DREMT’s own linked ref.s are physically correct, Earth’s moon rotates on its own axis once per rev. of Earth:
“The Moon..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.”
“MikeR said in one response that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.”
That, for some reason, was presented as part of his “evidence” that every single object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis!
miker …”DREM, I agree with Bindidon of course
The race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin with respect to the carousel.
It spins with respect to the external environment. I am sure Bindidon would agree with that, as any sane person would”.
****
Like Binny, your grasp of physics is slim to none. Binny’s forte is channeling ancient scientists who don’t really want to talk to him.
The horse does not spin wrt its external environment. It turns with the carousel in a state of curvilinear translation. The fact that it constantly points in different directions is a result of it being attached to the rotating carousel.
The horse can be said to be rotating about the carousel axle as part of the platform to which it is bolted but in no way is it rotating about its’ own axis/COG. That fact is obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of physics which you and Binny obviously lack.
Bindidon actually said:
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
He agrees with us that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis. MikeR was just misrepresenting him, as usual.
Bindidon explaining DREMT’s 2:09pm: And that is the reason why all toy examples fail..this toy example is NO correct analogy to our Moon’s behavior”
Nonspinners like DREMT are proven wrong by the moon’s day/night cycles caused by rotation on moon’s own axis per DREMT’s own linked ref.s:
“The Moon..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.”
ball4…”Nonspinners like DREMT are proven wrong by the moons day/night cycles caused by rotation on moons own axis per DREMTs own linked ref.s:
The Moon..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.”
Enough with the amateur physics already. The Moon’s day/night cycles are caused by its orbit. When the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth its far side is lit. When it’s on the opposite side from the Sun its near face is lit.
The second statement is one of the dumbest conclusions yet reached. Where’s the proof? We non-spinners have proved over and over that keeping the same face to the Earth rules out rotation about a local axis.
It should be obvious to you even through visualization that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping one face pointed at the Earth.
“When the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth its far side is lit. When its on the opposite side from the Sun its near face is lit.”
Because the moon rotated on its own axis during its orbit. If the moon stared at the sun all during its orbit (not rotating on its own axis), then there would be no day/night cycles. Keeping the same face to the Earth rules out rotation about a local axis more or less than once per rev.
ball4…”When the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth its far side is lit. When its on the opposite side from the Sun its near face is lit.
Because the moon rotated on its own axis during its orbit”.
***
If you consider a jetliner following a similar orbit at 35,000 feet, under its own power with constant veloctiy, like the Moon, then according to you the jetliner has rotated about its own axis between the solar side of the Earth and the other side.
The jetliner has its underside always pointing toward the Earth, it is constantly pointing in a different compass direction, and we know what happens if it rotates on its local axis/COG.
Per Gordon: “The horse does not spin..It turns..”
Proving Gordon does not know about which Gordon is writing.
ball4…”Proving Gordon does not know about which Gordon is writing”.
And as usual, Ball4 rebuts with no proof or even information.
Gordon, if the horse turns, it spins. And vice versa. You do not understand kinematics; especially Gordon does not understand curvilinear translation.
ball4…”Gordon, if the horse turns, it spins. And vice versa. You do not understand kinematics; especially Gordon does not understand curvilinear translation”.
***
Coming from someone who does not think heat exists, I’ll take your observations with a grain of salt.
Read the relevant texts Gordon, heat does not exist in an object; heat is the total thermal KE of the object’s constituent particles.
ball4…”Per Gordon: The horse does not spin..It turns..”
Now I know you’re a troll. I said the horse turns with the carousel.
How does it feel to always be on the losing end of a debate?
Gordon said the horse turns with the carousel which is correct accoding to observers, one complete 360 turn per rev. of the carousel.
“The horse can be said to be rotating about the carousel axle as part of the platform to which it is bolted but in no way is it rotating about its’ own axis/COG”
Exactly. The horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis. If the horse were rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and rotating about its own center of mass, you would see all sides of the horse from the center of the carousel.
You only see the same side of the horse from the center of the orbit, so you know it is not rotating on its own axis.
If the horse were rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and rotating about its own center of mass more or less than once per rev., then you would see all sides of the horse from the center of the carousel.
Is Ball4 trying to leave his sinkng ship?
No ClintR, I’m not on any ship; I’m having fun easily debunking ClintR, DREMT, bill, and Gordon et. al. DREMT is easiest since DREMT provides links to articles with ref.s that self-debunk his own comments.
No, Ball4 is doing his usual thing of taking my words and mindlessly adding "once per rev."
This is one of the reasons I no longer bother responding to him.
He is arguing that because the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, it is rotating on its own axis "once per rev." of the carousel. When, in reality, as Bindidon put it:
"…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin [does NOT rotate "once per rev."]; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel."
DREMT responds! DREMT’s failed response is, as usual, easily debunked as Bindidon was using those words as an example of failure.
Yes, Ball4 will claim this ship is still floating, as he sinks underwater. He has nothing except his usual distortions.
Reality always wins.
Can we look forward to a day when DREMP stops responding to everybody?
“He has nothing except his usual distortions”
Yes, ClintR…they can’t even tell the difference between someone talking about them as opposed to someone talking to them.
bob, the people I am not responding to now can’t help but keep responding to my comments towards others anyway…why pretend you would be any different?
DREMT,
Then tell me why you had to jump in on this thread with your please stop trolling bull?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-553079
That thread had nothing to do with you.
Stop trolling, and I won’t have to ask you to stop trolling.
DREMPT,
Learn some science, get out of the clown car, and you would realize that I am not trolling.
^^ Trolling ^^
Gordon shrieks:
“The horse does not spin wrt its external environment. It turns with the carousel in a state of curvilinear translation.”
WRONG GORDON!!! A translating object does NOT change its orientation. You keep getting this wrong ALL the time. An example of curvilinear translation is the seat of a ferris wheel. The seat does not rotate at all. Get this through your thick skull.
He got it right here:
“The horse can be said to be rotating about the carousel axle as part of the platform to which it is bolted but in no way is it rotating about its’ own axis/COG”
Which is wrong, correctly: The bolted horse can be said to be rotating about the carousel axle as part of the platform to which it is bolted but in no way is it rotating about its own axis/COG more or less than once per rev.
Gordon blubbered:
“The horse does not spin wrt its external environment. It turns with the carousel in a state of curvilinear translation. The fact that it constantly points in different directions is a result of it being attached to the rotating carousel.”
WRONG! A translating object always remains pointed in the SAME DIRECTION. It NEVER points in different directions, fool. Why can you never get this straight? Because you are completely ignorant regarding kinematics.
Dr Madhavi: “Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
I am surprised Gordon can even tie his shoes in the morning. He probably has slip-ons.
He got it right here:
“The horse can be said to be rotating about the carousel axle as part of the platform to which it is bolted but in no way is it rotating about its’ own axis/COG”
No, Gordon is wrong about that too as proven by his moon coin and earth coin “adjusting”.
svante…”Michael Mann, Education:
1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics”
That was the same year, his graduation year, that he helped write the hockey stick nonsense. The IPCC showed their desperation by accepting such a juvenile study without verification. They were quick enough when it came to discarding the theory after the National Academy of Science and expert statistician Wegmann revealed its numerous errors. Have to give credit to McIntyre and McKitrick for recognizing the trash it was and keeping up the pressure till the US government forced a review.
NAS concluded that Mann et al could not claim a 1000 year range and limited it from 1600 onward. They first stipulated, however, that the pine bristecone which was the only proxy data used for the 20th century was invalid. That meant essentially that the blade end of the hockey stick was invalid.
Of course, Mann already knew that and he got around it by deleting proxy data that was showing cooling and replacing it with real data (hide the decline trick). The IPCC dropped the hockey stick altogether, limiting its range from 1850 onward and adding so many error bars to the graph it is now called the spaghetti graph.
The question is why the IPCC allowed the garbage in the first place. In the 1990 review, they had already confirmed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period which Mann et al omitted altogether. In the spaghetti graph they have reinserted the LIA and MWP so there is no longer a flat handle.
Let’s face it, Mann has proved himself to be incapable of the lowest level of climate science yet his climate buddies got him inducted in to NAS, an event that would have been unthinkable before the climate alarmist clowns took over NAS like a pack of vermin.
GR, can you post a link to a dataset or study you trust on the global mean temperature showing the LIA and MWP?
bdgwx, can you post a link that explains your complete meltdown?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
And despite all that the hockey stick is confirmed again and again, with better and better data, and with or without tree rings:
https://tinyurl.com/y25t5le4
Silly snowflake Svante, when you admit that 160 W/m^2 can not turn into 640 W/m^2, then you start digging yourself out of your hole.
It’s a deep hole….
Dear ClintR,
A room with a 160 W radiator, how hot can it get?
That depends on its insulation and outside temperature.
Can it get to 52 C? Then it can reach 640 W/m^2.
Silly snowflake, now you’re adding dishonesty to your incompetence.
160 Watts is NOT the same as 160 W/m^2.
You have no understanding of the science involved. You just troll those that do.
OK, the radiator is 1 m^2.
That radiator at 160w/m2 won’t be able to warm anything warmer than -42.5C.
Death valley has exceeded 52 C, you and ClintR should sell radiators there.
Now dishonest and incompetent silly snowflake Svante brings in Sun to help him with his disastrous 160 W/m^2 turning into 640 W/m^2.
What an idiot!
I said it depends on insulation and outdoor temperature.
With some modest insulation you can have your 640 W/m^2 with 30 C outdoors.
Shhhhhh.
OK, perhaps bill hunter can admit he was wrong?
Hush.
ClintR maybe?
Silence.
ClintR says:
November 16, 2020 at 9:02 PM
Poor bob doesn’t understand what the debunking will be about. I have advertised the uncoming debunking of the “tidal locking” nonsense, but poor bob is talking about “synchronous orbit” which doesn’t even make sense.
Poor bob. He’s as stupid as Svante and Snape.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ” ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Tonto, no debunking proof yet heh!
I’m convinced that you and the rest of the non-spinners are playing some kind of trolling game that has no apparent purpose. Maybe y’all have a bet on who can come up with the dumbest analogs, flip-flop definitions, and move the goal posts the most times.
ALL planets and satellites in our solar system have some rotation, or spin, but in your twisted minds our moon does not! You believe that it orbits the earth without rotation but it still, somehow, does not present all its sides to an earth based observer! I suppose believing an object in space behaves like a horse on a merry-go-round or a ball on a string has a lot to do with that aberrant view.
https://tinyurl.com/rotation-in-space
Y’all get back in your clown car, go to your “laboratory” and work on the proof, you hear!
Yes Snape, the ball on a string is a good model of orbiting. The ball always has the same side facing the center of the orbit. It’s the same as Moon.
And there are several other moons in our solar system that are also orbiting, but not rotating about their axes. Of course, you wouldn’t know anything about the science.
The “tidal locking” debunk is coming. Several more sleepless nights for you idiots, first.
Me, I am sleeping soundly, no need to worry about you debunking tidal locking.
I hear Vegas has the odds at 4 billion to one, so it’s not worth it.
Tonto says:
“there are several other moons in our solar system that are also orbiting, but not rotating about their axes.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Name them!
Io, Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede are 4.
There are over 20 total. It’s not a surprise. If a moon, with no axial rotation, were captured by a planet’s gravity, it would still have no axial rotation.
You can learn more when I have time to present the “tidal locking” debunk.
Stay tuned.
ClintR,
“If a moon, with no axial rotation, were captured by a planets gravity, it would still have no axial rotation.”
That’s funny, Astronomers don’t think it happened that way.
Not that Jupiter doesn’t have any captured satellites, it’s just that the Galilean ones were not captured.
Even if they were captured, how do you know that they were not rotating when captured.
You don’t.
Nope, all four of those you named are tidally locked and synchronously spin-orbiting their planet, Jupiter. Try again you idiot!
That’s precisely what is being argued. All “tidally-locked” moons are examples of moons that are orbiting, and not rotating on their own axes, because they keep the same face always to the center of the body they are orbiting.
As I explained further upthread:
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
DREMT,
Your claim that follows is false
“The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
Spinners don’t define orbital motion, they use the standard definitions astronomers have used for centuries.
Non-spinners make up their own definitions. And these definitions that non-spinners use lead to contradictions with observations.
Poor bob doesn’t even understand his own argument. No, bob, the “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit. You will just have to learn to accept that.
DREMPT,
You fail to understand our position and erect straw men.
We, or at least I do, use standard definitions of rotation and orbiting as can be found in Astronomy textbooks or references like Madhavi.
I don’t define two things at once, I treat orbiting and rotating as separate phenomena.
Sorry Charlie, you already admitted the Moon spins on its axis when you admitted that the Moon changes its orientation.
Forget about it you lost.
OK, bob. Let me ask you, then, how would you describe an object that is orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis? How does it remain oriented, whilst it moves?
Your answer, as a “Spinner”, must be: the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, whilst it moves.
Or words to that effect. That is all I’m saying. The pushback on this is because you people despise there being any clarity on this issue. You want to obfuscate.
It is true that Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team already admitted that “the Moon spins on its axis when [he] admitted that the Moon changes its orientation;” yet he still incongruously claims that the moon has zero spin-angular momentum. That is either dishonest or doltish; unscientific in any event.
Tyson, the moon is changing its orientation because it is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (revolving).
Obviously the moon is changing its orientation! It’s not like it is something I or any other “Non-Spinner” has “admitted” – it goes without saying! It’s just a fact.
Again, the wooden horse is changing its orientation – it faces through N, E, S, W and back to N, but it is not rotating on its own axis. It is merely rotating about the center of the carousel. Don’t believe me? Listen to your fellow “Spinner” Bindidon…
“…the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel.”
So to be clear, you are saying that the Moon’s spin-angular momentum is equal to zero!
Obviously, yes. The wooden horse’s spin angular momentum is also equal to zero. It is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
Well you can find examples on the web to calculate both the angular momentum of the Moon due to its orbiting and also a different value due to its rotation.
The Moon does have angular momentum.
I know you can, bob. That is because the people calculating it think the moon rotates on its own axis.
DREMT,
You mean because they observe the Moon rotating on its axis.
Think what you want.
Tonto the retard has now added 4 of Jupiter’s moons to his merry-go-round!
All “tidally-locked” moons.
Which means they rotate on their axis once for every time they revolve around their host.
Except for Mercury.
That one is different. And there may be others like Mercury.
Which means they orbit without rotating on their own axes.
If they didn’t rotate, they wouldn’t be tidally locked and you would see all sides of the moons from within the moons orbit.
From the "Non-Spinner" perspective, a tidally-locked moon (like our Moon) is one that orbits without rotating on its own axis.
So here we have another definition changed by DREMT.
Your definition is incorrect, if the Moon isn’t spinning it isn’t tidally locked.
I wonder how ClintR is doing on his debunking?
Of anything.
I’m not changing any definitions. I’m simply pointing out that from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, a tidally-locked moon (like our moon) is one that orbits without rotating on its own axis. You do understand the “Non-Spinner” perspective, right!?
“Im not changing any definitions. Im simply pointing out that from the Non-Spinner perspective, a tidally-locked moon (like our moon) is one that orbits without rotating on its own axis. You do understand the Non-Spinner perspective, right!?”
Uhhh your entire ‘perspective’ is based on changing the standard definition of ORBIT to one that agrees with your Model.
Oh, and denying observable facts, like the lunar poles…ha!
I have said once before, “I’m convinced that you and the rest of the non-spinners are playing some kind of trolling game that has no apparent purpose. Maybe y’all have a bet on who can come up with the dumbest analogs, flip-flop definitions, and move the goal posts the most times.”
Except for now I see that Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team is starting to use the language those of us with the scientific argument have been using all along. Maybe you should call off Tonto’s quixotic quest before he wrecks his brain any more than it already is.
I am interested to hear the “tidal-locking” debunk. Though currently I have no problem with the tidal-locking mechanism (and if anything it only makes more sense from the “Non-Spinner” perspective) I may change my mind on that if the argument is convincing.
That’s good to know
“the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
That you have no problem with the “spinner” position.
I have a problem with the “Spinner” position. I have no problem with the tidal-locking mechanism.
And what is that mechanism?
You had a link to it earlier. Read the section on "Mechanism".
You heard it here first folks!
” Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: I have no problem with the tidal-locking mechanism”
https://tinyurl.com/spin-orbit-team
It isn’t news, I have argued that many times before.
Arguing about tidal locking and why the moon spins or doesn’t the way it does is retarded argument misdirection and strawman constructed by the flatmooners , the reasons why something spins has absolutely nothing to do with determination whether it in fact spins or not.
Well, you are always determining whether something spins or not incorrectly, because you do not pay attention to what axis the object is rotating about. For example, a wooden horse located towards the outside edge of a carousel is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis…but you keep arguing that it is rotating on its own axis.
eben…”Arguing about tidal locking and why the moon spins or doesnt the way it does is retarded argument misdirection and strawman constructed by the flatmooners …”
Not so, Quasimodo. We are merely exposing the lack of intelligence and awareness upon which the anthropogenic theory is based and as defended here by alarmists. The same lack of logic and science exposed here with regard to the Moon is employed by alarmists, all the way up to their gods at NOAA and GISS.
What I don’t get is how you can see through that scam and be fooled by the Moon’s alleged local rotation.
“, the reasons why something spins has absolutely nothing to do with determination whether it in fact spins or not.”
Exactly. This is a point I tried to make with Bill, who is all caught up in the weird mechanism.
“Tidal locking” debunk now only days away.
Many rats have already left the sinking ship.
ClintR,
What esteemed journal will you have publish your debunking?
Weekly World News?
bob, are the last rats on the sinking ship the dumbest rats?
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
I don’t see any threat from your debunking.
Are you going to debunk that tidal locking involves one face toward the central body, or that the orbiting body is rotating?
bob, which do you enjoy more, trying to pervert reality, or trying to corrupt science?
CLintR,
If you got on a bus full of queers, would you get off?
So “trying to pervert reality” is your favorite.
I could have guessed….
ClintR,
I’ll just have to wait for your debunking of the tidal locking, and see whether it perverts reality or corrupts science or both.
My money is on both.
“Weekly World News?”
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2014/10/batboy1_1/lead_large.jpg?GE2DGMBRGUYTQNRYFYYA====
Weekly World News would reject Clint. Not up to their high standards.
Shhhhhhh.
“Tidal Locking” Debunked
Galileo is credited with the first experiments verifying that gravity affects all objects equally, regardless of their mass. Two objects of unequal mass would fall at the same rate, even if one of the objects were 100 times the mass of the other.
Centuries later, astronauts performed the same experiment on Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8
A hammer and feather fall at the same rate, due to gravity. If the hammer were secured on one end of a long bar, and the feather secured on the other end of the bar, the assembly would fall without any induced torque, or rotation.
That’s established science, aka “reality”.
The false idea that Moon rotates about its axis started in astrology. It was never corrected, because the false belief has no affect on anything. Since it is not happening, it has no affect.
But, it has become part of the cult beliefs, and has been supported by the “tidal locking” nonsense. The problem is, gravity does not induce a torque on a sphere. It the sphere were originally not rotating, it would still not be rotating, in a gravity field. If the sphere were originally rotating, gravity could not stop the rotation.
People that understand the physics involved probably now see why “tidal locking” is debunked. But, here’s an example for others that may still be confused:
Take our moon and slice it down the middle, like cutting an orange in half. Now, hollow out both hemispheres of the moon. Fill one hemisphere with hammers, and the other hemisphere with feathers. Let’s guess that the hemisphere filled with hammers has 100 times more mass of the other hemisphere. Now, put the halves back together.
Would the modified moon start rotating about its axis?
Of course not, gravity cannot create a torque on a moon. But idiots have no understanding of the science, so they only believe what their cult teaches:
“What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.
There are 3 sentences in that quote, all 3 completely FALSE. Yet idiots willingly suck up and swallow such nonsense and regurgitate it constantly.
Just as the simple analogies debunk Moon rotation, the simple hammer/feather experiment debunks the “tidal locking” nonsense.
Reality — sinking one false belief after another.
“Would the modified moon start rotating about its axis?”
Galileo and the astronauts performed an experiment to validate/answer their questions about gravity. Where is ClintR’s question on gravity experimentally validated/answered?
Nowhere.
ClintR has nothing until his experimental results are posted and independentently confirmed.
Ball4 starts the denial. I’m guessing they can come up with maybe 10-12 such wasted efforts to cling to their cult nonsense.
Let’\’s call his first effort: “The moon is not an orange”.
They’re sooooooo desperate.
ClintR still has nothing. Do the experiment to self debunk; over time the side with the with hammers will stare at the earth w/modified moon rotating once on its own axis per rev. still experiencing day/night cycles.
ClintR is correct only for a uniform, isotropic moon. Clearly ClintR fails for a nonisotropic moon just like today’s moon experiment in progress with mascons.
That will go down as “Laws of physics change with time.”
Another good one, courtesy of Ball4.
1) The moon is not an orange.
2) NASA faked the video.
3) Indoctrination supersedes reality.
4) Earth and Moon are too big to obey laws of physics.
5) Confusing “weight” with “mass”.
6) Laws of physics change with time.
Only a few like ClintR would think the laws of physics change in an experiment. ClintR won’t ever do the experiment because it will self debunk ClintR’s claim.
Sorry Ball4, but bob beat you to it. He’s was first to deny the NASA experiment. You can’t use that one.
ClintR needs to do the experiment to support ClintR claim, not NASA, not bob, not anyone else. ClintR has nothing until ClintR has proper, replicable experimental proof.
ClintR,
I didn’t deny the NASA experiment.
You failed to comprehend my reply and attacked a strawman.
You don’t understand the gravitational force equation.
Shhhhh.
ClintR, what do you agree or disagree with in the following article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
DREMT, gravitational gradient is real, but the concept that the resultant stretch can cause torque is where the nonsense begins. Tides occur in large bodies of water, due to Moon, but the resultant tides do not induce a torque on Moon.
It’s vector calculus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient
above your paygrade, school grade, or mental capacity.
Shhhhhh.
ClintR,
Epic fail, you didn’t even address what tidal locking is.
The Moon still keeps one face in the general direction of Earth and the Moon still rotates once for each orbit.
Anyway, if the Moon had one half hammers and one half feathers, gravity would pull the half with the hammers to be closest to the Earth.
Thanks bob. Let’s call your denial “NASA faked the video”.
So far, we have:
1) The moon is not an orange.
2) NASA faked the video.
ClintR,
You failed to take into account that the Moon and the Earth are far larger than a long iron bar.
You haven’t gone far enough in school to get to the point where one stops treating everything as a point.
When you get as big as the Moon and Earth the forces on each end of the bar are different because one end is closer to the gravitational source than the other. So the acceleration will be different.
Try again.
Another good one, bob.
“Earth and Moon are too big to obey the laws of physics.”
1) The moon is not an orange.
2) NASA faked the video.
3) Indoctrination supersedes reality.
4) Earth and Moon are too big to obey laws of physics.
Really ClintR,
You think I am saying the Earth and Moon are too big to follow the laws of physics.
F = G (m1 * m2)/ r^2
That’s Newtons law of gravity
Notice the r squared term in the denominator.
Once again ClintR decides to ignore laws of physics.
bob, I just try to make sense out of your denial. Of course it is not easy to make sense out of nonsense.
ClintR,
Your lack of physics knowledge is on display.
bob runs out of ideas to deny reality, so he resorts to false accusations.
(He learned that from Norman.)
ClintR doesn’t understand reality and blames others for his lack of comprehension.
Shhhhhh.
Tonto this comment proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you truly are a frigging idiot!
The moon has become tidally locked with earth by virtue of having its primordial spin slowed down by tidal effects due primarily to earth’s gravitational pull. However, in your childlike construct the moon simply appeared out of nowhere, some 4 billion years ago, in a rotating solar system, as a unique non-rotating body, and has been orbiting earth as such, but somehow not presenting all its sides. Magical thinking is the only explanation for this unicorn moon of yours.
I don’t expect that you would know that lunar samples brought back by the Apollo missions indicate that the moon had a strong magnetic field in its infancy. Proof of a molten ferric core in a rotating body, i.e. a dynamo. Of course you don’t know this because you believe NASA, the moon landing and the whole space program are a hoax.
The worst part is that children learn about the moon’s synchronous rotation by the 5th grade in the typical US standard curriculum;
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/workshops/unknownMoon/Tuesday/PennyMoonQuarterEarth.pdf
you on the other hand obviously did not get that far in school.
Good one, Snape! Let’s call your denial: “Indoctrination supersedes reality”.
We now have:
1) The moon is not an orange.
2) NASA faked the video.
3) Indoctrination supersedes reality.
“2) NASA faked the video.”
Is the video showing objects in orbit. No. Strawman.
Hint: orbiting is different from falling in a uniform field.
Suppose your sphere is in circular orbit with hammer side pointing in direction of motion.
Will there be any torque then? If you understand a bit of physics and go thru it, considering centrifugal force and gravity force, you will see that the heavier hammer side experiences a greater NET downward force than the lighter side.
There will be a torque.
Nate is having a hard time being coherent, when he’s drowning.
He should have left the sinking ship when Norman and Tim left.
Nate,
Falling is falling. No torque on your hammer. The head falls at the same rate as the handle. In an orbiting space station, everything appears to float. Massive, or not. A hammer in the space station doesnt rotate due to gravity.
Have a think about it. Reality doesnt agree with your dreaming.
Sorry about that.
“If you understand a bit of physics and go thru it”
Obviously doenst apply to Clint or Flynson.
“In an orbiting space station”
Good example. Not “just falling”. The asymmetry of it produces torque. Look it up. Needs active feedback to keep a desired orientation to Earth.
Nate,
No it doesnt. Look it up.
You are confused about attitude control. You need to learn about the complexities of inserting a satellite into orbit, and keeping it there, at a required attitude. You have no clue at all.
“You are confused about attitude control. You need to learn about the complexities of inserting a satellite into orbit, and keeping it there, at a required attitude.”
Swenson does an amazing self-goal. Confirming exactly what I said. That satellites in orbit need ‘attitude control’.
IOW things in orbit are not behaving like objects ‘simply falling’.
Thanks very much.
Tonto when you hear the adults say “it’s raining cats and dogs out there,” what image comes into your head? Just curious.
Pure nonsense, child.
Maybe if you change names again it will help.
Tonto gets triggered again!
“ClintR says:
November 19, 2020 at 11:16 AM
Pure nonsense, child.
Maybe if you change names again it will help.”
Dance bisch!
Shhhhh.
“The problem is, gravity does not induce a torque on a sphere. It the sphere were originally not rotating, it would still not be rotating, in a gravity field. If the sphere were originally rotating, gravity could not stop the rotation.”
Something to like in an otherwise bizarre essay.
I would just make one tweak: “gravity does not induce a torque on a UNIFORM sphere.”
But this is good. It means if a uniform non-rotating Moon entered Earths orbit, gravity would not not start rotating.
Thank you, it means Newton’s cannonball fired without rotation does not keep its same face to Earth.
It means if Earths gravity were switched off, the Moon would fly with rotation.
Now hammer time: obviously the hammer side of the Moon will experience greater force, and will align with the Earths field.
Because its not a uniform sphere.
Experimental test: tape a weight, like a large coin on a volley ball. Place it on the table with weight side up. What happens?
Nate, it’s hard to make sense out of your desperate rambling, but it seems you are confusing “weight” with “mass”. So now we have:
1) The moon is not an orange.
2) NASA faked the video.
3) Indoctrination supersedes reality.
4) Earth and Moon are too big to obey laws of physics.
5) Confusing “weight” with “mass”.
When you want to “debunk” something scientifically, you follow the scientific method. You did no such thing. It’s not even worth responding to. I guess for laughs it might be OK to comment.
Your comment reveals your frustration and irritation. That is indeed good for laughs.
Thanks.
skeptic…”When you want to debunk something scientifically, you follow the scientific method”.
We’ve already done that.
Object: To prove the Moon does not rotate about a local axis as it revolves around the Earth.
Apparatus and material: two coins
Method: Two coins are set up on a table to represent the Earth and the Moon. The coins are placed side by side with the coin on the left representing the Earth and the coin on the right representing the Moon.
A radial line was drawn from the centre of the Earth coin to the 3 o’clock position. With the Moon coin butted against the Earth coin a line was drawn from the 9 o’clock position on the Moon coin, through its centre to the 3 o’clock position. An arrow head was drawn on the line at the 9 o’clock position pointing straight at the Earth coin centre via its radial line.
The Moon coin, to the right, was moved on the surface of the Earth coin so that the line with the arrowhead always pointed to the Earth coin’s centre.
Observations: In order to keep the line on the Moon coin pointing always at the Earth coin’s centre, it was not possible to roll the Moon coin as would be expected for rotation about its centre. If that action is taken, halfway around the perimeter of the Earth coin, the arrowhead is pointing directly away from the Earth coin’s centre.
It was necessary to slide the Moon coin on the Earth coin perimeter while constantly adjusting the Moon coin so the line always pointed to the centre of the Earth coin.
Furthermore, it was obvious that all points along the line drawn on the Moon coin were moving in concentric circles about the Earth coin.
Conclusions:
1)it is not possible for the Moon coin to rotate around its centre while moving around the Earth coin. If such an action takes place (rolling) the arrowhead no longer pointed at the Earth coin’s centre. By the halfway point, the arrowhead was pointing directly away from the Earth coins centre.
2)The adjustment required while sliding the Moon coin around the Earth coin is to replicate the effect of Earth’s gravity on the linear momentum of the Moon.
3)anyone who think the Moon rotates on its axis is a bleepin’ idiot.
“It was necessary to slide the Moon coin on the Earth coin perimeter while constantly adjusting the Moon coin so the line always pointed to the centre of the Earth coin.”
Now Gordon is an “adjuster”. Gordon’s “adjustment” being equal to the moon coin turning (Gordon term) on its own axis once (360 degrees) per rev. of the earth coin.
Gordon,
Try it without the coins touching.
Like in this exercise for fifth graders
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/workshops/unknownMoon/Tuesday/PennyMoonQuarterEarth.pdf
You will learn the penny rotates with Lincoln’s face pointing through all degrees of a circle.
Rotation.
Yeah, what he said!
Gordon,
Your coin experiment makes no sense. The coins should not be touching. Does the moon touch the earth?
Only a clown like you could come up with a dumb experiment like that.
Gordon,
With the coins separated, you rotate the outer coin between your fingers one time on its own axis as you orbit the other coin. The same side will remain pointing to the center of orbit.
Hey Gordon,
We already know an orbiting object cannot rotate on its own axis wrt a reference frame rotating at the same rate as the object itself, which is what you are trying to prove.
An object can be rotating about an external axis, whilst simultaneously rotating about its own axis. When that occurs, you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. When an object is just rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis, you always see the same side of the object from the center of the orbit.
Just some facts about rotation.
That analysis would be incorrect.
“An object can be rotating about an external axis, whilst simultaneously rotating about its own axis. When that occurs, you see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.”
When that occurs and it is rotating about its own at the same rate that it is rotating about an external axis, then you only see one side of the object from inside the orbit.
See Cassini, 327 years ago.
“When an object is just rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis, you always see the same side of the object from the center of the orbit.”
This is also an incorrect analysis.
If an object is rotating about an external axis and not rotating on its axis, you would see all sides from within the orbit.
It is not incorrect, bob, and I have backed it up many times. See Madhavi Fig. 2(b). The rectangle cannot rotate on its own axis, it is held in place by the rod connecting it to point O. It can only rotate about point O (the external axis). In doing so, it presents the same face to the center of the orbit throughout. All its particles move in concentric circles about point O.
Keep living in your fantasy world where you know physics,
DREMT.
Your example from Mahdavi is not an example of an object rotating around an external axis as the axis it is rotating around goes through part of the object.
The axis is external to the rectangle, and Madhavi draws the concentric circles forming from the particles of the rectangle, not the connecting rod.
Good point Bob. The object is all one piece, and includes the rectangle shaped part, and the connection piece. So the axis for the object is not external.
But they don’t let facts get in the way. It’s part of their MO. Redefine terms, make up definitions.
The plate itself (the rectangle) is rotating about point O, which is external to the plate. Madhavi draws the concentric circles forming from the particles of the plate, not the connecting rod.
Common theme of these flat earthers: “An object cannot rotate wrt a reference frame fixed to the object”.
We understand that. A ball on a string cannot rotate wrt the string. Of course the string is not on the inertial reference frame. But they don’t care. They just have a mental block. Even though you can observe the ball rotating on its own axis, it does not matter. Even though you can prove through geometry and kinematics that that the ball rotates on its own axis, it does not matter. They close their eyes, redefine terms, and make up their own definitions in a pathetic attempt to “prove” their point. This is why they are a minority cult, trolling the internet.
DREMT,
The circles are drawn with the center of the circles on the connecting rod.
And the rectangle keeps one side towards that connecting rod, therefore the rectangle is rotating.
An example of there being more than one way to tell if something is rotating.
The plate is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis. Regardless of reference frame, that is the reality.
The plate is rotating about point O, and on its own axis once per rev. as observed.
One can perform a relative motion analysis wrt a translating reference frame with the origin located at the center of mass of the rectangle. It will show the rectangle rotating around its center of mass, once per orbit.
Such an analysis is exactly the source of your confusion, SGW. You cannot center your reference frame on the center of mass of the plate. In doing so, you lose sight of which axis the plate is rotating around. You have to “zoom out” your reference frame so that it is centered on point O. Then you can see that the plate is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis.
DREMPT,
Take it up with Madhavi, she says its rotating.
It is rotating. Just not on its own axis.
Unfortunately, bob, Madhavi doesn’t write rotating about which axis. Both plates a and b are rotating about a central point; plate a is not rotating on its own cg axis, plate a is just translating. Plate b is translating & also rotating about its own cg axis which is the point Madhavi is making “rotation” that is intentionally missed by DREMT et. al.
The motion of the plate defines the axis it is rotating on, so it is its own axis, no matter what, DREMT is just playing word games badly.
Back to the Moon, its motion defines the two axes it is rotating around, one is centered at the Earth Moon barycenter and the other is centered within the Moon.
No word games, bob, just the simple reality that the plate has only one rotational axis – point O.
I suggest you ignore DREMT, like I am. He is frozen in his ignorance, ignores the concepts of kinematics, redefines terms, and makes up his own definitions. He will NEVER see the errors of his ways. ClintR, the same.
I am just waiting for Gordon to show up so I can harass him about his dumb two-coin experiment and his stupid translation definition.
I will forever be correct that the plate has only one axis of rotation – point O.
Well, with the exception that an axis is a line, not a point.
The axis is located at point O.
Nate,
Bad luck. Newtons cannonball just falls continuously. If high enough that no atmospheric drag occurs, and fast enough to exceed minimum orbital velocity. It will orbit the Earth. Just the force of gravity acting at right angles to the initial direction.
You are echoing the thinking of the smart thinkers before Newton. They were wrong. Silliness is not confined to you, or some people at NASA. It is seen in the NSF, NOAA, the IPCC, and many other organisations.
Learn some physics. Newton was right – you are not smarter than Newton in this regard. His Law of Universal Gravitation, combined with his Laws of Motion, tell you all you need to know,
As to your supposed test, you had to do work in opposition to the force of gravity to unbalance your volleyball. What are you trying to show? Do you really believe that gravity will spin the volleyball continuously? Perpetual motion?
Good luck with that! You really dont understand, do you?
”
Bad luck. Newtons cannonball just falls continuously”
Never said otherwise, strawman.
Volleyball. Did u try the experiment? Obviously you are confused.
Nate,
And a falling cannonball just falls – the same face continuously faces the Earth. The falling Moon just falls – the same face continuously faces the Earth.
No confusion. Only climate donkeys are perpetually confused.
Face reality.
Here’s another behind the scenes look at Tonto in his laboratory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg
Fascinating!
ClintR mumbles:
“It was never corrected, because the false belief has no affect on anything. Since it is not happening, it has no affect.”
If you are going to write a debunk paper, try using proper grammar. Affect is a verb. The correct word to use is “effect”, the noun, clown. No “effect”.
The priority was getting the science correct. Typos are secondary, until the coffee kicks in.
But glad you’re reading. Learning might follow….
ClintR,
There was no science presented. No debunking whatsoever. Just your usual rant.
Read up on the scientific method.
skeptic…”Affect is a verb. The correct word to use is effect, the noun, clown. No effect.”
Before you take to smugly correcting someone’s grammar, it is advisable to learn some physics so you don’t have to resort to an ad hominum/red herring attack.
“Before you take to smugly correcting someones grammar, it is advisable to learn some physics so you dont have to resort to an ad hominum/red herring attack.”
That is hilarious coming from a clown who consistently has gotten the definition of curvilinear translation wrong for over 2 years now, besides the moon rotation issue.
skeptic…I notice you cannot define it yourself but as a major idiot you criticize someone who can.
Gordon,
I have posted translation definitions countless times on this blog. You just blindly ignore them.
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
From Dr. Madhavi:
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion”
Your ideas of curvilinear translation do not meet any of the requirements.
“I am just waiting for Gordon to show up so I can harass him about his dumb two-coin experiment and his stupid translation definition.” – SGW revealing his intention is to troll.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 19, 2020 at 8:34 AM
ClintR, what do you agree or disagree with in the following article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
ClintR says:
November 19, 2020 at 8:56 AM
DREMT, gravitational gradient is real, but the concept that the resultant stretch can cause torque is where the nonsense begins. Tides occur in large bodies of water, due to Moon, but the resultant tides do not induce a torque on Moon.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
This is another important point highlighting the non-spinners ignorance; though silence implies assent let’s get it on the record explicitly.
Does Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team agree with the Court Jester’s assessment of this scenario?
The debate was over when the “Spinners” declared every object on the Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating. Discussing the tidal locking mechanism is an interesting diversion, but it doesn’t affect that outcome.
Consider a tree located at the Earth’s equator. It is standing upright, perpendicular to the Earth’s rotational axis. So how is this tree supposed to be rotating on its own axis? Where is its axis located? Is it supposed to be rotating end over end!? The mind boggles.
It’s the same as the Moon on its axis, if you can’t get that, you won’t get the tree on the equator.
I will assume you think the tree is rotating on its own axis end over end, then. The axis is halfway up the trunk.
Lol.
Even with some rats deserting, we have some great examples of idiot nonsense:
1) The moon is not an orange. Ball4
2) NASA faked the video. bob
3) Indoctrination supersedes reality. Snape
4) Earth and Moon are too big to obey laws of physics. bob
5) Confusing “weight” with “mass”. Nate
6) Laws of physics change with time. Ball4
7) Science from Galileo and NASA unacceptable. SkepticGoneWild
Liars are going to lie, what can you do?
I made none of those statements ClintR attributed to me.
Right, bob, they are all dodges invented by ClintR to avoid the commenters mentioned.
bob, if you want to rephrase your denials of reality, please do so.
(A limit of 25 words or less is required. Thank you.)
ClintR,
I didn’t make any denial of reality, you made serious mistakes in your debunking of tidal locking, which I pointed out to you.
Okay, it you stick to your original denials, I won’t change my descriptions.
Only too happy to accommodate.
You lied about what I said.
I would expect a retraction about the time the Earth and Moon become tidally locked to each other like Pluto and Charon.
Shhhhh.
Tonto the clown true to form being childish, naive and superficial. See what you could have learned if you’d stayed in school past the 4th grade…
“The students will use a penny and a quarter to model the Moon’s rotation on its axis and revolution around the Earth, and demonstrate that the Moon keeps the same face toward the Earth.” https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/workshops/unknownMoon/Tuesday/PennyMoonQuarterEarth.pdf
Yes, one coin rotating around another coin, and not on its own axis.
Well a 5th grader would tell you to follow the diameter of the penny perpendicular to the vector that connects Lincoln’s to Washington’s nose as it rotates through 360 degrees; then you’d be as smart as a 5th grader.
…because one coin is rotating around the other coin, and not on its own axis.
A 5th grader would tell that she’s moved on to bigger things while you strugle with an elementary question.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004700/a004768/phases_2020_fancy_360p30.mp4
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
#2
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
The tidally locked synchronously spin-orbting Moon team:
https://media.giphy.com/media/S99cgkURVO62qemEKM/giphy.gif
Science rules!
#3
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
The tidally locked synchronously spin-orbting Moon team’s science rules!
The 1:1 Spin-Orbit Moon Team’s scientific approach to the argument rules!
SkepticGoneWild says:
November 20, 2020 at 1:16 PM
“I suggest you ignore DREMT, like I am. He is frozen in his ignorance, ignores the concepts of kinematics, redefines terms, and makes up his own definitions. He will NEVER see the errors of his ways. ”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
I wholeheartedly agree!
snape…”I suggest you ignore DREMT, like I am. He is frozen in his ignorance, ignores the concepts of kinematics, redefines terms, and makes up his own definitions”.
With your distorted views of dremts real science we will still be locked down with this virus 40 years from now. That’s because the idiots running medical science have the same Draconian views toward scientists who actually understand and do real science.
#4
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
Fordone Gordon is completely incoherent now. That brainlet of his is finally fried.
#5
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 20, 2020 at 1:38 PM
snape…”I suggest you ignore DREMT, like I am. He is frozen in his ignorance, ignores the concepts of kinematics, redefines terms, and makes up his own definitions”.
With your distorted views of dremts real science…”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Poor foredone Gordon, you believe Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team has presented any science! He has not. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king!
#6
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
#6
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
What is this science fordone Gordone speaks of? All I’ve seen out of you is something about horses on a mgr?
“The 1:1 Spin-Orbit Moon Teams scientific approach to the argument rules!”
Spinners Rule, non-spinners drool!
#7
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
bobd…”Its vector calculus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient
above your paygrade, school grade, or mental capacity”.
The gradient, or grad does not apply here. Clint was talking about Earth’s gravitational field which has no x and y coordinates but only a z(alititude) component. That component is not varying, it is static, even though there is a gradient of another time with altitude.
grad f is intended for something like the temperature of a room at certain points, to show how the temperature varies physically.
At your link, a function 2x + 3y^2 – sin(z) has a gradient…
grad f = 2i +6yj – cos(z)k
i,j,k are unit vectors located at x,y,z = 0,0,0 and the multipliers locate a point in x,y,z space and indicate how that point is changing. It’s obvious that the grad of
2x + 3y^2 -sin(z) is the derivative of that function, indicating how it is changing at that point.
You can’t do that with a constant gravitational vector field in one dimension even though it is changing gradually in the vertical direction. That kind of change is static and not the dynamic changes for which grad f is intended.
I call BS on this because the gravitational field is a vector field and thus has a gradient which is defined as the directional derivative. It’s been a few years since I’ve done Calculus by hand, but I do remember once working a problem where the solution involved graphing the gravitational field.
snape…”I call BS on this because the gravitational field is a vector field and thus has a gradient which is defined as the directional derivative. Its been a few years since Ive done Calculus…”
No, it’s not defined as a directional derivative. It is a static field and the derivative of a constant is 0. A derivative only applies to a continuous function, representing the instantaneous rate of change of the function. There is no instantaneous rate of change for a gravitational vector field because it is fixed by altitude.
The field is fixed at 9.8 Newtons/kilogram with the newton (force) value changing with altitude based on the inverse square law.
Gordon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#:~:text=At%20latitudes%20nearer%20the%20Equator,downward%20acceleration%20of%20falling%20objects.
Gordon,
The Moon and the Earth pull on each other causing changes in their respective gravitational fields, which cause the tides etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
And yes, it’s a field in three dimensions.
bobd…”And yes, its a field in three dimensions”.
How can it be 3-D, Bob? In any freebody diagram, gravity is represented as a vector pointing from a body to the Earth’s centre.
The grad f operator to which you linked does not deal with a single, inline vector. It deals with a vector field when a field is involved but in the case of scalar quantities like particles of air in a room, where their average KE is the temperature, grad f represents the instantaneous change of those molecule’s KE in a tiny area. It shows how the temperature is changing at a point in space.
As you know, a vector is a scalar quantity with a direction vector. The scalar is the quantity or value of the vector. grad f operates on the scalar quantities to show the instantaneous value of the change in a function representing a position in space.
That does not help with a fixed gravitational field like the Earth’s field. There is nothing to change at a point of space since the field is fixed in a negative gradient by the distance from the Earth’s centre.
How can it not be in 3 dimensions Gordon, the Earth is three dimensional.
Anyway altitude refers to spherical coordinates, x,y,z to cartesian coordinates.
“In any freebody diagram, gravity is represented as a vector pointing from a body to the Earths centre.”
Are you drawing your free body diagrams in 3 dimensions or did you not get that far in your studies?
“That does not help with a fixed gravitational field like the Earths field.”
The Earth’s gravitational field varies, it’s not fixed.
This is possibly way over your head, or it was over your head, the experiment is over.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/gravity-recovery-and-climate-experiment-grace/
bobd…”Are you drawing your free body diagrams in 3 dimensions or did you not get that far in your studies?”
I have done hundreds of free body diagrams related to gravity and I have never seen a vector representing gravity requiring x,y,z coordinates. Why would they need 3-D, gravity acts as a vector in a single line pointing toward the Earth’s centre?
I think you are talking about the components into which a vector can be broken but that would not apply to a gravity vector.
Gordon,
“Why would they need 3-D, gravity acts as a vector in a single line pointing toward the Earths centre?”
Because the force of gravity varies from point to point on the earth’s surface, and the Earth’s surface is 3-D.
All you have done is simplified free-body diagrams.
Gordon,
Too embarrassed to defend your dumb two coin experiment?? How come you did not respond to any of the comments noting how dumb your experiment is?? And how about your wacky curvilinear translation definition which no kinematic reference supports? And you have to nerve to lecture us??
Calm down.
snape…it appears you not only have little expertise at calculus, your physics is lacking too.
I am betting my coin experiment baffles you because it is correct. You cannot debunk it. And why do I need a kinematic reference support to define curvilinear translation.
Curvilinear translation is no different than rectilinear translation other than it applies to a curved path rather than a linear path. The stipulation for RT is that each point on the body move parallel to other points and they must also move at the same velocity.
With a curve, parallelism is defined by the tangent to a curve and the angular velocity is defined by a radial line perpendicular to the tangent line and anchored at an axis that defines the curve’s radius instantaneously.
Of course, with no understanding of calculus or physics, you won’t be able to reply to that hence the ad homs and insults.
Gordon,
The requirement for any type of translation is that “any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.” A line tangent to the curve does not maintain the same direction throughout its motion. So I don’t know why you even mention that. You are confused as to what curvilinear translation is.
Secondly, your two coin experiment does not even come close to simulating the earth-moon system. Your moon coin touches the earth coin. Makes no sense at all. The moon does not touch the earth.
One does not need calculus to understand the above. However, one does need knowledge about kinematics, which you seem to lack.
You may as well complain that the moon is not a coin. Sheesh.
Also it’s not a pony on a carousel, a ball on a string or a tree on the equator.
Well done, bob. You’re learning.
Right,
So why do you keep using them to try to prove that the Moon is not rotating?
You make no sense at all.
Analogies are analogies.
Bad analogies make bad arguments.
Silence is golden.
skeptic…”A line tangent to the curve does not maintain the same direction throughout its motion”.
I have explained several times why I mention lines tangent to a curve, they represent the rate of change of the curve at any one instant. The tangent lines to an orbital path explain the change in direction of the Moon as it orbits the Earth. You spinners have mistaken that change in direction as a rotation about a local axis.
If you have rectilinear translation of a rigid body on a horizontal surface, all points in the rigid body will move in the straight lines you mention and parallel to each other. The moment the path curves, the definition of parallel must be changed to represent the properties of a curve.
Please note, the rigid body must slide, it cannot rotate, otherwise the lines cannot remain parallel. It’s exactly the same with the Moon in its orbit. It’s motion along a rigid curved path would be sliding and not rolling. Otherwise it could not keep the same face toward the Earth.
Any curve is defined by a radial line representing a circle whose circumference coincides with the curve at an instant. With a circle, it’s easy to find the radial line, it’s the radius of the circle. With other curves, the process of finding the radius of curvature is more complex.
https://www.intmath.com/applications-differentiation/8-radius-curvature.php
If you have two points in the rigid body performing curvilinear translation, they must move parallel to each other at any instant. That means the tangent lines to the curves they are following must be parallel.
A curve is a series of instantaneous points where the rate of change at one point is defined by the tangent line at that point. The tangent line represents the 1st derivative of the equation of the curve which is also the slope of the curve at any one point. The slope represents the rate of change of y wrt x.
Therefore, with curvilinear translation, parallelism is defined by the tangent lines at an instant along a radial line, at each point on concentric circles defined by the tangents. If you look at any point on the Moon along a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon, all points making up that line within the Moon are moving in concentric circles. The tangent lines to each of those points are all perpendicular to the radial line and parallel at a given instant.
Since at consecutive instants the tangent lines point in slightly different directions that explains how the Moon can orbit with the same face toward the Earth without rotating about a local axis.
We knew the idiots would go into full denial of the “Moon Rotation” debunking. But what makes it even funnier is they have to not only deny reality, they have to deny NASA!
Their cult is falling apart as their ship sinks.
ClintR,
You defending NASA now?
“Misconception
The Moon does not rotate.
Reality
The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
from NASA
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/#:~:text=The%20Moon%20does%20not%20rotate.&text=The%20Moon%20does%20spin%20on,the%20same%20side%20facing%20us.
Your team is the one denying NASA
Yes bob, “modern” NASA is broken. A half century ago, NASA was the “Numero Uno” of science. 50 years of perversion and corruption takes its toll. NASA is now just another bloated bureaucracy.
Moon is NOT rotating about it axis. That’s easily observed because we only see one side of it from Earth.
And the “Tidal Locking” nonsense is easily debunked:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
ClintR,
“Moon is NOT rotating about it axis. That’s easily observed because we only see one side of it from Earth.”
I’ll put you down for not smarter than a fifth grader.
Putting people “down” is all you’ve got, bob.
Your “science” is a disaster. You’re trying to imitate Norman and Bindidon. If you were able to think, you would realize they’re not doing so well either….
…though at least they understand that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis.
I am not putting you down ClintR, though why should you take offence, you are often calling people idiots.
You got the wrong answer compared to a fifth grade science experiment, though.
No bob, you were fooled, again.
The ball on a string is the debunk for Moon rotating about its axis.
You’ve already seen the debunk of “tidal locking”.
Your cult ship is sinking. Many ot the smarter rats have deserted.
Where does that leave you?
That puts me playing Nearer My God to thee on electric guitar.
Wait til your 6th grade science teacher straightens you out.
That is if you don’t get held back.
bob has nothing responsible to add, again.
Yeah, I am going down with the ship.
Though I have been training in maritime damage control and know how to fix leaks if I find any.
So far I haven’t found any, the ship is experiencing fair winds and following seas.
Shhhh.
bobd…”Your team is the one denying NASA”
Yes, I deny what NASA is saying. They have not proved their case and I have, as have the other non-spinners. In fact, their case is so egregiously wrong it surprises me they have not corrected it by now.
There is no way for the Moon to complete one rotation about its imaginary axis while performing one orbit of the Earth. It is simply not physically possible. If it could do that, at the halfway point of its orbit, the near face MUST point to space and away from the Earth.
NASA is clearly caught up in the confusion you spinners have created. They think because the near face points in different directions throughout the orbit that it must be rotating about a local axis. It’s also clear that the article was written by a PR type who lacks the ability to think for himself/herself.
Right
“If it could do that, at the halfway point of its orbit, the near face MUST point to space and away from the Earth.”
At the halfway point of its orbit, it has made one half rotation, so it now points back towards where it started its orbit. And still pointing towards the center of the orbit.
“At the halfway point of its orbit, it has made one half rotation…”
…but not on its own axis.
Whose axes would it be rotating around then DREMPT?
Yours, mine, Mars’s, Venus’s, or Plutos?
Dumb.
Yes DREMT,
A dumb person would not know where the two axes the Moon rotates around are located.
It is an easy task to google and find the answer.
https://www.google.com/search?q=find+x+cartoon&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS900US900&sxsrf=ALeKk02sFVjR-mxgNpVDfCqDHg7QuRK3eg:1605973912549&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=9oWaGm3AsNiwhM%252COe29WJHJb5F77M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSzSqGUdt6PO1WGOj-ixCBDS3D-Lw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIm82E_5PtAhWaVc0KHe15DuEQ9QF6BAgKEDY&biw=1280&bih=578#imgrc=9oWaGm3AsNiwhM
If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit.
But it is and we don’t.
So you are wrong again.
I was just stating a fact about rotation.
In order to build a model to model the Moons motion, allowing that it will be modeled as a circular orbit, it is necessary to use three motors.
One to revolve the Moon around the Earth counter clockwise, tilted 5.14 degrees to the ecliptic.
One to rotate the Moon clockwise normal to the plane of the orbit.
One to rotate the Moon counter clockwise at an angle 6.68 degrees from the normal to the plane of the Moons orbit.
Otherwise, if the model doesn’t have the Moon rotating, it doesn’t exhibit the libration that the Moon exhibits.
Bottom line: the Moon has to rotate to show libration.
DREMT,
“I was just stating a fact about rotation.”
no you were not, you’re just lying.
Incorrect.
bobd…”At the halfway point of its orbit, it has made one half rotation, so it now points back towards where it started its orbit. And still pointing towards the center of the orbit”.
Bob…you need to observe more closely. Not intended as an insult, there is an illusion taking place. As Dremt points out, there is no rotation about the Moon’s centre. The change in direction to which you refer is a property of the orbital motion.
Think of the Moon as a body with only linear momentum /velocity. It wants to move in a straight line and at any instant that straight line causes the same face to point to the Earth’s centre. Gravity acts on it to change the direction of that straight line. There is no need for the Moon to rotate about its centre to keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
bobd…”Whose axes would it be rotating around then DREMPT?
Yours, mine, Marss, Venuss, or Plutos?”
You forgot the obvious axial point, the Earth. It’s rotating about the Earth with the same face always pointing to the Earth. That means there is no rotation about the Moon’s axis while the near face, or any face, continously points in a different direction.
Gordon,
Did you hear back from NASA yet?
“Not intended as an insult, there is an illusion taking place.”
No illusion, that is what is actually happening.
“Think of the Moon as a body with only linear momentum /velocity.”
I can’t, because the Moon has angular momentum.
“It wants to move in a straight line and at any instant that straight line causes the same face to point to the Earths centre.”
Anthropomorphisms aside, it is impossible to move in a straight line and keep pointing at the Earth’s center. Imagine you are diving down a highway and you see a cow, in order to keep looking at the cow, you have to turn your head, as you continue to drive in a straight line.
“Gravity acts on it to change the direction of that straight line.”
Actually, gravity keeps turning the Moon, keeping the Moons center of gravity and center of mass aligned with the Earth-Moon barycenter.
Changing the direction of that straight line turns it into a circle or ellipse, and that means the Moon is rotating.
"…and that means the Moon is rotating…"
…but not on its own axis.
Yes, moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit, DREMT’s own linked ref.s self-debunked DREMT:
“The Moon..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.”
#2
"…and that means the Moon is rotating…"
…but not on its own axis.
The Moon is rotating around an axis tilted 5.14 degrees from the ecliptic and rotating around an axis tilted 1.54 degrees from the ecliptic.
Two axes.
One external and one internal.
#2
If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit.
If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per Earth rev., we would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit.
#3
If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit.
Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA re Bob’s link.
Hi…would you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis. It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth while rotating on its axis. You are likely confusing a change in pointing direction of the near face during the orbit as local rotation but it is actually due to curvilinear translation.
Presuming a circular orbit, draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. Now draw tangential lines to the orbital path at the near face and far face. Circles representing those tangent lines are always concentric, make rotation impossible. If you go farther and draw tangential lines at each point where the radial line intercepts the Moon, every tangential line representing each point defines concentric circles. Ergo, all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles and no local rotation is possible. The motion is curvilinear translation, which explain why the near face, or any face, is always pointing in different directions.
Let me know how they respond.
Gordon spews:
“Ergo, all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles and no local rotation is possible. The motion is curvilinear translation, which explain why the near face, or any face, is always pointing in different directions.”
WRONG! Once again curvilinear translation REQUIRES “any line within the body maintain the same direction”. A line through the moon keep changing direction. C.T. requires that “all points in the body move on CONGRUENT curves. All points on the moon are moving in concentric circles, just as you state. So that is NOT curvilinear translation. CT requires that all points in the body have the same velocity. The outside edge and inside edge of the moon are at different radii so they have different velocity.
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
NASA is going to laugh at you. Everything you said was completely wrong, but at least get the definition of curvilinear translation correct for once in your life!!
SGW, all points on Moon move at the same speed, relative to Moon’s center of mass.
You have no clue about orbital motion. If parts of Moon were moving at different speeds relative to CoM, Moon would soon explode.
You’re an idiot.
No ClintR,
The parts farther from the center of mass move faster.
But if you meant angular velocity, then you are conceding that the Moon has angular momentum.
Clint,
The outer edge of the moon is at a farther radius than the inside edge from the center of orbit. Vt (tangential velocity) = r time omega (angular velocity). This is not rocket science, Clint. So they have different velocities. Which means the object is not translating.
SGW,
The Moon doesnt care. It just keeps falling towards the Earth, never reaching it.
All your clever reasoning and attempts at debating logic cannot change reality.
A pebble at the same distance as the Moon falls precisely as fast. Even Galileo pointed this out. The head of a hammer falls no faster than the handle. Neither a cannonball nor the Moon rotate because they are falling. If anybody at NASA thinks differently, they should be relegated to administration, or sweeping floors. As Feynman pointed out during the Rogers Commision, just because NASA engineers and administration thought they were very clever, this didnt mean they actually knew what they were doing.
Reality always wins.
Swenson,
https://tenor.com/view/snore-snoring-sleep-sleeping-gif-11169826
Once more for idiots bob and SGW: All points on Moon move at the same speed as its center of mass. Otherwise, Moon would come apart.
(They still won’t get it, but we tried.)
I thought you were saying all points on the Moon move in concentric circles.
After all, the far side makes a bigger ellipse than the near side, in the same amount of time, so it must be moving faster.
ClintR,
Gordon even stated:
“Presuming a circular orbit, draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. Now draw tangential lines to the orbital path at the near face and far face. Circles representing those tangent lines are always concentric”
What he said is true. The near face and far face are on different concentric circles. Therefore, the tangential velocities for the near face and far face are different. For an object to be translating, all points of the object must have the same velocity. Therefore the moon is not translating, which was my point.
You are hopelessly confused.
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
TMERD,
You have it sdrawkcab and gnorw.
It doesn’t work the other way around, for obvious reasons.
Third time for idiots bob and SGW: All points on Moon move at the same speed as its center of mass. Otherwise, Moon would come apart.
And the points form concentric circles. The idiots don’t understand the motions involved.
(They still won’t get it, but we tried.)
ClintR,
Why don’t you ask DREMT? He seems to be the less stupid of you clowns.
Secondly. What is the tangential velocity of the far side edge of the moon?
ClintR
Ask DREMT if “All points on Moon move at the same speed as its center of mass.”
ClintR,
I change my request. Ask DREMT what the tangential velocities for the far and near side of the moon are.
SGW, you’re flipping and flopping like a fish out of water.
This issue is clearly over your head.
ClintR,
You are still evading the question. What is the tangential velocity of the far and near side of the moon?
ClintR,
So do you need someone to show you how to do the calculation that SGW asks you to do?
The calculations that show the far side of the Moon is moving faster than the near side.
What the? How did it let me do that?
Anyway,
Clint. What is the tangential velocity of the far and near side of the moon?
I predict ClintR will not be able to answer the question.
bob joins SGW, like two fish out of water. flipping and flopping.
SGW can’t even comment without making a mistake. And then he tries to blame his incompetence on me. bob is due to start his immature profanity at any time.
I predict that neither of the two fish can make a mature and responsible comment about the issue.
Just as predicted, ClintR fails to solve a simple physics problem. He boasted about debunking the moon’s rotation and tidal locking, but can’t seem to solve for the tangential velocities of its near and far side!!
We’ll give him a little more time.
[Jeopardy theme plays in background]
SGW, you appear to know even less about physics than Norman, if that’s possible.
“Velocity” is a vector quality, having both magnitude and direction. So all points on Moon have incrementally changing velocities due to orbital motion.
Orbital motion is demonstrated by the ball on a string. It’s the same basic motion as Moon. Your failure to recognize that reality is more evidence of your immaturity and incompetence.
ClintR fails again.
Let:
r = radius from the moon’s center of orbit to its near face.
d = diameter of moon.
w = orbital angular velocity of moon
Tangential Velocity formula: Vt = r times w
Near side velocity: Vns = rw
Far side velocity: Vfs = (r+d)w
From the above, the velocity of the far side of the moon is greater than the near side velocity. The velocity of the center of gravity of the moon is half way in between.
So ClintR’s pronouncement that “All points on Moon move at the same speed as its center of mass” is totally bogus.
From the above, this also means the moon is NOT undergoing curvilinear translation as Gordon states, since curvilinear translation requires all points of an object to have the same velocity.
(As Gordon stated above, the presumption for this side discussion is a circular orbit for the moon)
ClintR,
“All points on Moon move at the same speed as its center of mass.”
And
“Velocity is a vector quality, having both magnitude and direction. So all points on Moon have incrementally changing velocities due to orbital motion.”
So all parts of the Moon are accelerating because of the incrementally changing velocities.
Good start, but you still haven’t addressed the fact that the far side of the Moon is moving faster than the near side of the Moon.
And that would cause the Moon to come apart if it wasn’t rotating.
Drempt,
“Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.”
Is not correct.
There are actually three cases
1) Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion with axial rotation exactly equal to the orbital period, the orbiting body changes orientation with respect to distant stars. This is the case with the Moon.
2) Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with no axial rotation, the orbiting body does not change orientation with respect to distant star. This is the case with the Hubble Telescope taking pictures of distant objects.
3) Crossing Epicycloids = orbital motion with rotation not equal to the orbital period or not rotating. This is the Earth around the Sun for one example.
No, bob. Just two cases.
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Paths criss-crossing multiple times already covers the Earth/sun example.
DREMPT,
The third case is for example, the Earth orbiting the Sun.
You are flunking basic Astronomy again and again.
"Paths criss-crossing multiple times already covers the Earth/sun example."
Sdrawkcab owt rehto eht evah uoy esuaceb s’tahT
I don’t have anything backwards.
bob is correct, DREMT has it backwards the fixed stars & sun are rotating about the moon exhibiting day/night cycles since DREMT claims the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis.
#2
I dont have anything backwards.
SGW, bob, and Ball4 continue to entertain us with their confusion.
The far side of Moon has the same instantaneous speed as the near side. Your invalid consideration is based on “relative to Earth”. To understand, you need to consider “angular” speed, which is the same for all points on Moon.
There is no hope of expecting you idiots to understand, so this is just for others.
A wind turbine blade has a speed of over 150 mph at the tip. But, 1 foot from the hub, it’s speed is less than 1 mph! Do you believe that means anything?
“The far side of Moon has the same instantaneous speed as the near side.”
ClintR admits the moon is rotating on its own axis also self-debunking all ClintR’s claims the moon is not rotating on its own axis just like DREMT.
Clint shrieked:
“SGW, bob, and Ball4 continue to entertain us with their confusion.”
Us?? I don’t see DREMT agreeing that the near and far side of the moon move at the same velocity.
So far all you have done is flap your lips. Where are your calculations?
ClintR,
What did I say?
I said
“But if you meant angular velocity, then you are conceding that the Moon has angular momentum.”
Now you say
“To understand, you need to consider angular speed, which is the same for all points on Moon.”
So you concede that all points on the Moon have angular speed,
Which means that the Moon:
Has angular momentum, and that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Well done.
Time to go all juvenile, but no profanity, that costs extra these days.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner!
You lose, as you claimed that all parts of the Moon have angular speed!
And there is even more, just pay an additional shipping and handling and you get
“So all points on Moon have incrementally changing velocities due to orbital motion.”
So you say all points on the Moon are accelerating, which again means the Moon is rotating, since you were referring to angular speed.
Ha!
Crickets from Clint.
I don’t always un-confuse confused idiots. Sometimes, I prefer to watch them wallow in their own nonsense.
skeptic…”Once again curvilinear translation REQUIRES any line within the body maintain the same direction. ”
That’s not possible on a curve.
You fail to grasp the meaning of a curve. Parallelism on a curve can only be defined at an instantaneous point on the curve. By the same token, a line defined in a curve can be of instantaneous length. So, a curve can be defined loosely as a series of straight lines of instantaneous length joined so as to form a continuous curve. Continuous mean it cannot abruptly change directions or suddenly change via a step. The change has to be smooth.
That means that the straight lines to which you refer in rectilinear translations cannot be defined in the same manner. In rectilinear translation you could define a line in a rigid body as being parallel to a horizontal surface. How would you do that with a curve? You need a reference point to which a straight line in the curve can be parallel.
That reference point is the tangent line to the curve at a particular instant. You are paying too much attention to the restricted definitions of curvilinear translation in some textbooks. One definition shows a bus with rotating rods fixed where its wheels should be. They claim it is curvilinear translation because the bus always remains upright.
That is not only nonsense, it has no practical application. It’s nonsense because there are no lines in the bus that move parallel in a horizontal or vertical direction. All points on the bus are moving in concentric circles.
Curvilinear translation must apply to all curved paths and as such it must apply to an orbit like Moon’s orbit. Otherwise, what is the point of having curvilinear translation?
SGW said: ”Once again curvilinear translation REQUIRES any line within the body maintain the same direction. ”
Gordon said: That’s not possible on a curve.
_______________________________
Sure it is. The gondola on a ferris wheel is an example of curvilinear translation. All points have the same motion, the same velocity, any line through the gondola maintains the same direction, and any point within the gondola moves on congruent circles. All requirements for curvilinear translation.
The moon on the right in the following animation is undergoing curvilinear translation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You are just not understanding the concept and are trying to apply it to the moon, which simply does not translate curvilinearly.
Gordon said: “You fail to grasp the meaning of a curve.”
I know what a curve is. Just because an object is moving along a curve does not mean it is translating curvilinearly. You are not understanding the requirements for curvilinear translation.
Gordon said:
“One definition shows a bus with rotating rods fixed where its wheels should be. They claim it is curvilinear translation because the bus always remains upright. That is not only nonsense, it has no practical application. It’s nonsense because there are no lines in the bus that move parallel in a horizontal or vertical direction. All points on the bus are moving in concentric circles.”
Almost every kinematics reference gives a similar type object as an example of curvilinear translation. Dr. Madhavi’s Figure 2a being an example. It shows a rectangular object connected to two rods that can rotate, similar to your bus example. The rectangle is undergoing curvilinear translation because: It’s orientation does not change. A line within the body maintains the same direction at all times. All points within the body move on congruent curves. All points within the body have the same velocity.
Gordon said:
“Curvilinear translation must apply to all curved paths and as such it must apply to an orbit like Moon’s orbit. Otherwise, what is the point of having curvilinear translation?”
Because curvilinear translation DOES NOT apply to all curved paths, which is why there is such a thing called curvilinear translation and a definition for it!! I have not found any kinematic reference where the definitions of curvilinear tranlation are not consistent with one another. How did you miss this in your schooling?? This is basic kinematics. With the moon’s orbit, the moon is continually changing its orientation, all points on the moon are moving in concentric circles, all points on the moon do not have the same velocity, etc. It’s motion does not meet the requirements for curvilinear translation. That’s just the way it is.
“With the moon’s orbit, the moon is continually changing its orientation, all points on the moon are moving in concentric circles…”
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Concentric circles = orbital motion with one horse axial rotation as demonstrated by the bolted wooden horse on mgr.
#2
“With the moon’s orbit, the moon is continually changing its orientation, all points on the moon are moving in concentric circles…”
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
The horse traces out a circle self-debunking DREMT, as bolted horse rotates once on its own axis per rev. of the mgr center.
#3
“With the moon’s orbit, the moon is continually changing its orientation, all points on the moon are moving in concentric circle…”
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Kinematics is very clear concerning curvilinear translation. There can be NO rotation of any line in the body. So for the moon on the right in the following animation, per every kinematic reference source you will find, the object does not have any axial rotation whatsoever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The object on the right is performing an orbit with no axial rotation. The object is exihibiting curvilinear translation. This is where our flat earthers have to make up their own definition. They simply redefine what curvilinear translation is. They ignore the inertial reference frame. Every one of these flat earthers would flunk any kinematics course. There is NO kinematic reference source that would say the object on the right has axial rotation. Period.
Pick any two point for the moon on the right. Their motion will form congruent curves, another aspect of curvilinear translation, and the curves will cross each other.
It is pointless to argue with the flat earther. They have their own lingo, their own definitions, so it is never possible to reason with them. I am going to finish my discussion with Gordon, then that’s it. It’s not a matter that we disagree and see things differently. It’s a matter that they throw out basic kinematic concepts completely.
SGW, kinematics also defines the motion of the moon on the left in your gif as being "rotation about an external axis". In other words, per kinematics, the moon on the left is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
Therefore the moon on the right is orbiting ("rotating about an external axis") and rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, and at the same rate. This has the visual effect of making it appear as though it is not rotating on its own axis, because the two motions offset each other.
That’s backwards, DREMT, in the proper inertial frame.
#2
SGW, kinematics also defines the motion of the moon on the left in your gif as being "rotation about an external axis". In other words, per kinematics, the moon on the left is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
Therefore the moon on the right is orbiting ("rotating about an external axis") and rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, and at the same rate. This has the visual effect of making it appear as though it is not rotating on its own axis, because the two motions offset each other.
skeptic…”The gondola on a ferris wheel is an example of curvilinear translation. All points have the same motion, the same velocity, any line through the gondola maintains the same direction, and any point within the gondola moves on congruent circles. All requirements for curvilinear translation”.
***
My point is that curvilinear translation must have a broader meaning than a bus constrained to turn on parallel rods or a gondola on a ferris wheel. It has to be the equivalent for a curve as rectilinear translation is for a straight line.
Recti in rectilinear means straight. Curvi in curvilinear means curved. There is essentially no difference between the two motions with the exception that one follows a curved path.
If you took a straight path and started a rigid body sliding along it, all points on the body would move in parallel lines at the same velocity. If you bend that path slightly so it has a slight curve, all points on the body still move in parallel lines at constant velocity wrt the path.
Someone has claimed the starting orientation of the points in the body is important. I don’t see why that is relevant. If you start a gondola on a ferris wheel at the 6 o’clock position and you detach the car, you can slide it in a straight line horizontally to get rectilinear motion.
If you re-attach it and start the ferris wheel moving CCW, you can claim a horizontal and vertical component to apply rectilinear translation but, in fact, the actual motion of each point in the gondola is in circles. The reason it does not turn in circles with the ferris wheel is that it has an axle about which it can rotate.
The gondola is rotating on that axle. That is not curvilinear translation.
The Moon in its orbit is an extraordinary phenomenon that is not usually seen on the surface. It’s not constrained by a rigid member as you might find with a gondola where its axle was welded so it could not rotate. The Moon is quite free to move in a straight line at all times even though the angle of that straight line is constantly being changed by gravity. It’s the change in that angle that is confusing the spinners into seeing rotation about a local axis.
I have used an example of a jetliner that was able to move on the surface on an imaginary runway around the Equator. It would start out on a horizontal tangential plane performing rectilinear translation. Eventually that horizontal tangential plane would give way to another, and another, etc., till the plane was able to taxi around the Equator in a complete circle.
That is now curvilinear translation. The two forms are very closely related. If the jetliner now took off and cruised at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity, Earth’s gravity would guide it into a circular orbit as it does with the Moon.
That is curvilinear translation by definition: all parts of the jetliner are moving parallel to each other at all times and at constant velocity.
That is NOT curvilinear translation by definition, so no Gordon, the jetliner rotates too. Once per orbit. To keep concentric circles. Same mistake you make for the moon: translation is NOT rotation. See Mahdavi’s explanations.
skeptic…”So for the moon on the right in the following animation, per every kinematic reference source you will find, the object does not have any axial rotation whatsoever:”
Neither does the one on the left. There is no rotational motion about the mid-point of the Moon figure. Draw a line perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth’s centre at the near face that can be a tangent line for an inner circle. Draw a line perpendicular to the far face and that can be a tangent line for an outer circle. The near face and the far face are obviously tuning parallel to each other at all time, negating any rotation about the centre.
Furthermore, it would not be possible for the Moon to move as in the right gif because it has only a linear momentum. The RH gif shows the black spot facing the Earth at 3 o’clock and facing away at 9 o’clock. That suggests some kind of rotation and does not represent the current situation where the same face is always pointed toward the Earth.
The Wiki page is seriously confused.
ball4…”the jetliner rotates too”.
If it did rotate on a local axis, it would crash. That demonstrates the reality that opposes your illusion.
Gordon states:
“Recti in rectilinear means straight. Curvi in curvilinear means curved. There is essentially no difference between the two motions with the exception that one follows a curved path.”
Correct. They are BOTH translational motions. And the gondola of a ferris wheel follows a curved path while exhibiting all the aspects of translation: no change is orientation, velocities for every point the same, a line through the body does not change direction. There are NO rotations within a translating body. But translating bodies can and do follow curves.
I am sorry you do not understand the concept.
In my above answer I was assuming you were referring to rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation.
Gordon, if it did rotate on a particular local axis more or less than once per orbit of Earth, only then would it would crash. Curvilinear translation means no rotation Gordon, see Madhavi.
Gordon says:
“The gondola is rotating on that axle. That is not curvilinear translation”
According to conventional kinematics, you are wrong. The gondola is translating as it follows a circular path. The gondola exhibits all the aspects of curvilinear translation. Remember, rotation is referenced to the inertial reference frame. A line through the gondola does not rotate wrt the inertial reference frame.
“Remember, rotation is referenced to the inertial reference frame.”
No, rotation is referenced to the relevant axis or axes. You need to be careful when using “the inertial reference frame” that you are able to correctly judge which axis the object is rotating about. Is the object rotating about its own center of mass, or about an external axis, or both?
Rotation is NOT properly referenced to the relevant axis or axes, just the inertial axis. If you don’t use a proper inertial axis frame, coriolis, centrifugal et. al. forces will not be correctly accounted in the motion of objects.
#2
“Remember, rotation is referenced to the inertial reference frame.”
No, rotation is referenced to the relevant axis or axes. You need to be careful when using “the inertial reference frame” that you are able to correctly judge which axis the object is rotating about. Is the object rotating about its own center of mass, or about an external axis, or both?
Is there any chance that we might, just might, return to a discussion of climate matters?
Has the world’s climate for example changed anywhere in any significant way so as be a danger to human survival?
Has anyone got any links to reputable studies of climate on a country by country basis?
Lurid media tales and speculation as ever abound – rising sea levels, a blazing planet, the climate emergency, you name it, but where are the objective and unbiased studies which tell us the true state of affairs?
If there really are climate changes, what precisely are they, and, again, are they in any way a danger?
‘Climate change’ is a term bandied about freely these days, but for those posting on this website, I ask: has the climate or have the weather patterns where you live changed in a noticeable, measurable way to the detriment of people living where you do? Do you have data or informed comment from meteorological studies to back up your comments?
Carbon500, the advantage of the Moon Discussion is to highlight the dominance of cult beliefs in any science discussion. When people deny reality, they are cultists, aka, idiots. If you’ve paid attention to the Moon Discussion, you’ve seen idiots claim that a wooden horse, securely bolted to the outer edge of a rotating platform so that it is unable to rotate about its axis, is nevertheless rotating about its axis.
And just yesterday, you could have seen the same idiots deny the gravity experiment by astronauts, performed on Moon.
The idiots maintain the same level of stupidity in the bogus AGW debate. It’s important to know who you’re debating against.
ClintR is lying about people denying the gravity experiments on the Moon because he doesn’t understand that the gravity force equation has distance in the denominator.
Tie a rope to one handle of a horse on a carousel, run it up and through an eyebolt attached to the ceiling over the center of the carousel and back down and tie it to the other handle on the other side of the horses head. Now start the carousel, the rope is fixed to the ceiling and can’t rotate there, but as the carousel turns the rope will twist up, proving that the horse securely bolted to the carousel is rotating on its axis.
The aforementioned idiots are just better at science than the local crew of deniers.
…the rope will twist up, proving that the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis.
But the rope is twisting up on its own axis.
…because the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis.
Bob,
You cannot reason with them. They deny observations. They make up their own definitions to suit their view. They deny the basics of kinematics and the inertial reference frame.
DREMT has been spewing this vomit for over 2 years. He will not change no matter what. Just ignore him.
The basics of kinematics dictates that the wooden horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not about its own center of mass, no matter how it may appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame.
DREMPT,
You are in the wrong class, this is advanced kinematics.
We are doing complex rotations now.
The wooden horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not about its own center of mass, no matter how it may appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame. Just ask your fellow “Spinners” Bindidon and Norman. They agree with us that you are wrong.
DREMT,
They said the wooden horse doesn’t rotate with respect to the platform.
That’s a different story.
They agree with me that the Moon rotates on its own axis.
They agree with you that the moon rotates on its own axis. They agree with us that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, period. Not “with respect to the platform”. Just “not rotating on its own axis”, regardless. Don’t twist their words, bob.
DREMT’s own linked ref.s don’t agree with DREMT:
The Moon..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.
#2
They agree with you that the moon rotates on its own axis. They agree with us that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, period. Not “with respect to the platform”. Just “not rotating on its own axis”, regardless. Don’t twist their words, bob.
Carbon 500
I think the idea of some people is to get the discussion on obscure topics so the science is not evaluated and found wanting.
Mark: I think you’ll enjoy browsing this data set from the UK Met Office:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Despite comprehensive records such as this, the British government is seeking to ban the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars in about ten years, replace domestic gas boilers with heat pumps and more besides – yet all we see is weather variations over the years.
This is why in my previous post I’m asking for the opinions of people who live in other parts of the world, along with any records such as the above. The Met Office data in general goes I believe back further than any other.
Carbon,
I was refering to the amount of time discussing the moon.
This forum is supposed to be discussing the climate data.
Thank you for the link.
Looking forward to looking at real data.
mark…”This forum is supposed to be discussing the climate data”.
The topic of this thread is the global temperature update for October 2020. We have been discussing that subject for years and we have discussed it in this thread. If you have something more to add I am sure you will get many responses but, for now, what else is there to discuss? We are awaiting the next global update to see where the average is headed.
We are in essence, filling in between climate updates. The current subject matter re the Moon is not for naught, it is revealing distinct mind sets between climate alarmists and skeptics and how each mind set arrives at its conclusions.
bobd…”…orbital motion with axial rotation exactly equal to the orbital period, the orbiting body changes orientation with respect to distant stars”.
Demonstrate that the changing orientation is rotation about a local axis. All you’re doing is presuming that to be true because it seems feasible. However, it cannot be proved in reality using 2 coins to represent the Earth and the Moon. It’s blatantly obvious from such an experiment that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
I have demonstrated with a jetliner, that although it can circumnavigate the Earth at 35,000 feet, keeping the same face toward the Earth, with its nose-tail axis constantly changing orientation wrt to the stars, that it cannot rotate about a local axis without a catastrophic outcome. What problem do you have seeing that truth?
Gordon,
To model the moon/earth system properly, you have to separate the two coins. You grasp the outer moon coin between your fingers and as you perform the orbit, you rotate the moon coin between your fingers on its own axis to keep the arrow pointed to the center of orbit. It requires one rotation on its own axis per orbit.
You could get a toy airplane and pierce its center of gravity edgewise with a nail or toothpick. Get a globe and perform an orbit. To keep the bottom of the plane facing earth, you have to spin the nail/toothpick between your fingers constantly, rotating it one time on its own axis per orbit of the earth. Nothing catastrophic happens.
Yes, there are many ways to fool yourself, SGW. The wooden horse sets you straight.
Yes, the bolted wooden horse sets DREMT straight rotating once on its own axis per orbit of mgr center axis. Drawing out concentric circles = one mgr orbital motion with one axial horse rotation as the plate shown in in Madhavi 2(b) & per DREMT’s own linked ref.s do for self-debunking DREMT:
“The Moon..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.”
Yes, there are many ways to fool yourself, SGW. The wooden horse sets you straight. As Bindidon and Norman agree, the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis. Just like the plate in Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
The bolted wooden horse sets DREMT straight. Bolted mgr wooden horse is observed rotating about the center of the carousel, and on its own axis once per rev. Just like the plate in Madhavi Fig. 2(b) and DREMT’s own ref.s that self-debunked DREMT:
“The Moon..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.”
DRsEMT’s wooden horsey, being bolted to the MGR, can not rotate freely, because it’s a part of the MGR. DUH. If said horsey were mounted with bearing such that it could rotate about a different axis, for example, an axis vertical to the MGR’s surface, then the horsey could rotate independently WRT the MGR and could thus exhibit a differing rate. That’s an intuitively obvious fact, beyond argument.
Like the horsey mounted on a bearing, the Moon’s rate of rotation exhibits the result of all torques it experienced since it formed. A better carnival ride analogy for your consideration is the Tilt-A-Whirl. Take a ride next your mommy lets you go to the carnival.
E. Swanson shows up to save the sinking ship. Only his cult’s ship has already sunk!
Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
The wooden horse does NOT rotate about its axis.
The ball on a string does NOT rotate about its axis.
And, “tidal locking” is nonsense.
ClintR’s claim Moon does NOT rotate about its axis is self-debunked by ClintR writings elsewhere. Just like DREMT self-debunking his own comments. The team doesn’t know what they are writing about causing such antics.
Ball4, you are self-debunked before you even start abusing your keyboard.
You do downhill from there….
#2
Yes, there are many ways to fool yourself, SGW. The wooden horse sets you straight. As Bindidon and Norman agree, the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis. Just like the plate in Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
DREMT once again self-debunks & puts his own words in other’s mouths. Fun to point out.
"DRsEMT’s wooden horsey, being bolted to the MGR, can not rotate freely, because it’s a part of the MGR."
Now you’re getting it, Swanson. It’s just like another part of the MGR. And like all parts of the MGR, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the MGR, and not on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Wouldn’t you agree?
No agreement, as DREMT simply self-debunks again. The wooden horse is observed to rotate once on its own axis per mgr orbit just like the moon in DREMT’s linked ref.s:
“The Moon..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.”
The bolted wooden horse rotates about its axis in the same time it takes to orbit mgr. This results in it always keeping the same face turned towards mgr center.
"Wouldn’t you agree"…Swanson?
This is a question to Swanson, you see, the person that I am trying to have a discussion with, but keep getting interrupted by some sort of incessant, squawking troll.
skeptic…”You grasp the outer moon coin between your fingers and as you perform the orbit, you rotate the moon coin between your fingers on its own axis to keep the arrow pointed to the center of orbit”.
***
The reason I put it on the perimeter of the stationary coin is to demonstrate that the coin cannot be rolled around the perimeter exactly once while keeping the same face pointed at the stationary coin’s centre. It doesn’t matter if its touching or held away, it’s just easier to see the action with both coins touching.
Yes…you have to adjust the moving coin to replicate the action of gravity on the Moon’s linear momentum. The point is, you must slide the moving coin around the perimeter of the stationary coin while doing the adjustments. If you try to roll it, as would be required for an angular velocity around the centre, even a tiny amount, the mark no longer points at the stationary coin’s centre.
If you start sliding the moving coin at 3 o’clock on the stationary coin, with the mark facing the stationary coin’s centre, you must adjust it to keep the mark pointing toward the stationary coin centre. That’s not a rotation about the moving coin’s centre.
Draw a radial line from the stationary coin’s centre right through the Moon’s centre to the far face. Now draw perpendicular lines to the radial lines at the near and far face, which represent tangent lines for an inner and out circle. At any instant, the far face is moving parallel to the inner face and that is not allowed with rotation about the centre.
You can go further and create more tangent lines on the radial line, even at the centre, representing concentric circles between the other two. That proves that all points along that radial line are moving in parallel. Not allowed for rotation about a centre. No angular velocity about the centre.
Gordon, correctly you adjust the moving moon coin to rotate once on its own axis per rev. of the Earth coin for a correct analogy to the earth-moon system.
I missed it earliier but the Zombie has arisen again.
The whole coin thing has been done to death a couple of months ago,see the following thread that goes on for several weeks.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-525125
I think the avuncular Gordon should stop raving and resume his seat at the Thanksgiving table, and get someone to wipe the dribble off his chin. Give him some more Turkey, that should keep him quiet.
Sorry to be so harsh on poor Gordon but he just keeps raising the same thing, over and over, as if the previous discussions had never taken place.
Maybe he has just forgotten, so here is something that might jolt his memory.
https://i.postimg.cc/gJ5HCTDQ/Loony_Tunes.gif
According to bob, and Ball4: the windows on the left in your gif, where you show just the orbiting coin on its own, do not represent the inertial reference frame. Just so you are aware.
DREMT,
I don’t believe he ever specified that he was using an inertial reference frame for that.
And he doesn’t have to, a non-inertial reference frame works for his gif, and to prove that the Moon rotates.
Lol.
“According to bob, and Ball4:”
That’s wrong DREMT since I’ve never commented on that GIF.
#2
Lol.
bobdroege says:
I dont believe he ever specified that he was using an inertial reference frame for that.
And he doesnt have to, a non-inertial reference frame works for his gif, and to prove that the Moon rotates.
—————————
Non-inertial reference frames worked fantastically for Ptolemy also.
Gordo wrote another blast of delusional physics:
Aircraft (and orbiting satellites) have 3 axes in inertial space to define rotation, roll, pitch and yaw. Using a non-inertial coordinate system fixed in the vehicle with the yaw axis being Z downward, there’s no apparent rotation as that coordinate system is rotating WRT inertial space, i.e., the stars. In reality, the vehicle is exhibiting a pitch rotation in an inertial reference frame, a fact which you morons fail to comprehend. The result is that the vehicles complete one pitch rotation for every pass around the Earth.
When will you guys ever learn some physics? Are you waiting for the Plumpy guy to concede his defeat?
Poor Swanson gets himself all confused. Judging rotation by an inertial reference frame centered on the cm of the aircraft is precisely where you go wrong. How exactly do you think you can judge what axis an object is rotating around if you choose a reference frame which excludes all possibilities besides the center of mass of the object!? “Zoom out” your reference frame so that it is centered on the cm of the Earth, instead. Now you can see that the aircraft is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and not on its own axis.
Sure, zoom out. Now you can see that the aircraft is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and on one of its own axes just like the bolted wooden horse sets DREMT straight. And DREMT’s linked ref.s self debunk DREMT:
“The Moon..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.”
DRsEMT continues to fail basic physics. It doesn’t matter where one places the center of the coordinates are placed, as long as it is an inertial reference frame. In any such reference frame, the aircraft, a satellite and the Earth are each rotating, though at different rates. A satellite completes an orbit in about 90 minutes, the Earth in 23.935 hours and the aircraft in however long it takes to complete the trip. Each passage each rotates once.
Swanson continues to fail basic physics. I was talking about an inertial reference frame, with the center of the coordinates placed through the cm of the Earth. From such a reference frame, you can see that the aircraft is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and not on its own axis.
Yes, of course it matters where you place the center of the coordinates. Again: how exactly do you think you can judge what axis an object is rotating around if you choose a reference frame which excludes all possibilities besides the center of mass of the object!?
That is precisely what you are doing if you choose to put the center of the coordinates through the cm of the aircraft.
DREMT talking about an inertial reference frame, with the center of the coordinates placed through the cm of the Earth demonstrates DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is writing about. DREMT self-debunks when DREMT admits the Earth cm is spinning thus not an inertial frame.
Swanson continues to fail basic physics. I was talking about an inertial reference frame, with the center of the coordinates placed through the cm of the Earth. In other words, r=0 is fixed on the cm of the Earth, a=0 is pointing towards some fixed star…
That’s not an inertial reference frame.
Yes it is. a=0 is pointing towards a fixed star.
bob is correct, DREMT self-debunks writing: “r=0 is fixed on the cm of the Earth” when DREMT admits the Earth is spinning so DREMT frame is not inertial. Fun to point out DREMT self-debunks with continuing physics failures.
DRsEMT, you have specified the for only one axis. It takes 3 orthogonal axes to define a coordinate system. In which direction do your other 2 axes point?
I was using polar co-ordinates, where r=radius and a=angle. Just use whatever co-ordinates you would use, Swanson, for an inertial reference frame centered on the cm of the Earth.
DREMT was using 2D polar co-ordinates for a plane that are non-inertial. The Earth spins & is a 3D sphere DREMT, DREMT fails physics again.
Swanson, bdgwx has always used 2D polar co-ordinates when discussing reference frames relating to this issue, and has always referred to the reference frames where a=0 was pointed to a fixed star as inertial. I’m just following his lead as I found it easy enough to understand, and I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible. Those who want to troll me and obfuscate this issue will continue to do so, but hopefully we can move past this and actually get on to discussing the point I’m trying to make.
bdgwx didn’t write “r=0 is fixed on the cm of the Earth” in this top post comment thread, DREMT did – so it is DREMT’s frame that is non-inertial.
I suppose if it really needs clarification, a reference frame where r=0 is going through the center of mass of the Earth and a=0 is pointed at a fixed star is a rotationally inertial frame.
DRsEMT, Picking one vector does not define an inertial reference frame. You need three axes to define an orthogonal coordinate system. Of course, you could also express using polar coordinates, but the results would be the same. An inertial coordinate system could be placed at either the CM of the Earth or the CM of the Moon, both could have the three axes parallel and the rotations in each system would be the same. That’s because both sets of axes point toward the same places in the celestial sphere.
If you center your co-ordinates for your reference frame at the center of mass of the aircraft, you cannot correctly judge where the axis of rotation for the aircraft is…since the axis of rotation can lie outside of the aircraft. You have to zoom out your reference frame.
As I wrote:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556871
As I wrote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556875
If you center your co-ordinates for your reference frame at the center of mass of the aircraft, inertial guidance systems do correctly judge where the axis of rotation for the aircraft is for all three axes so DREMT gets his physics wrong again (no zooming required) & E. Swanson is correct.
#2
As I wrote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556875
That’s correct E. Swanson. The “guys” won’t ever concede, as they were built to think backwards. It’s fun to often point out that they self-debunk themselves.
Oh, Methinks DREM doth protest too much. However I have to take DREM’s word and that it was someone else who hijacked his account.
Anyway, DREM I am very happy to note, has accepted (with out any sign of protest) that the rigid body is not an appropriate description of the Earth/Moon system and that is just meant to be an analogy.
Let Bill know as he doesn’t seem ready to accept this.
Out damned spot. Wrong spot for the above comment!
#2
Poor Swanson gets himself all confused. Judging rotation by an inertial reference frame centered on the cm of the aircraft is precisely where you go wrong. How exactly do you think you can judge what axis an object is rotating around if you choose a reference frame which excludes all possibilities besides the center of mass of the object!? “Zoom out” your reference frame so that it is centered on the cm of the Earth, instead. Now you can see that the aircraft is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and not on its own axis.
Just another DREMT self-debunk.
#3
"…Now you can see that the aircraft is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and not on its own axis."
Just a third DREMT self-debunk.
#4
"…Now you can see that the aircraft is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and not on its own axis."
He still doesn’t know what an inertial reference frame is.
I will assume you are talking about yourself, since you do not know what an inertial reference frame is.
I agree with bdgwx on what constitutes an inertial reference frame. You disagree with him. So argue it out with him.
To be clear, DREMT doesn’t know what is an inertial frame as DREMT repeatedly demonstrates. bdgwx and bob do know what is an inertial frame.
#2
I agree with bdgwx on what constitutes an inertial reference frame. You disagree with him. So argue it out with him.
No, bdgwx didn’t write: “r=0 is fixed on the cm of the Earth” in this top post comment thread, DREMT did.
I suppose if it really needs clarification, a reference frame where r=0 is going through the center of mass of the Earth and a=0 is pointed at a fixed star is a rotationally inertial frame.
Repeating it’s delusions, DRsEMT, the sock puppet/troll still doesn’t understand coordinate systems, let alone inertial reference frames.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556869
You have no response to my argument, so the false accusations begin.
I have described the requirements for an inertial reference frame, they are quite simple, but DREMT refuses to use an inertial reference frame.
He makes up a rotationally inertial frame which is frankly gibberish.
I believe this is what he meant, but who knows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame#:~:text=A%20rotating%20frame%20of%20reference,rotating%20about%20a%20fixed%20axis.
According to the way bob defines an inertial reference frame, you can’t center your coordinate system on any moving object. So you can’t have an inertial reference frame centered on the moon, or the Earth/moon barycenter, for instance.
DREMT,
That’s right, except it’s not the way I define it, it’s the way Einstein and others of his ilk defined it.
You can not center an inertial reference frame on an object that is accelerating.
Thanks, I have let MikeR know he has it wrong:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-557027
and I will let bdgwx know the same, if he ever shows up.
DREMPT,
Also,
“you cant center your coordinate system on any moving object. ”
You can center your coordinate system on a moving object provided that it is not accelerating.
Constantly moving in one direction with constant speed would be ok.
Lol, OK bob.
DRsEMT still doesn’t know what an inertial reference frame is. As long as the three axes of the coordinate system point to the same three points in the sky, it doesn’t matter where the origin is placed, WRT rotations, as any such coordinate system has axes which are parallel to those using any other choice for origin. As a result, the rotational vectors for each will point in the same direction WRT the celestial sphere.
I agree with you, Swanson. It does not matter where the origin is placed. Please explain that to bob, who is arguing that it does matter where the origin is placed.
Lol. This discussion is as comical as ever.
DREMPT,
“Lol, OK bob.”
Too lazy to look it up?
Ian says
“You’re lazy just stay in bed
You’re lazy just stay in bed
You don’t want no money
You don’t want no bread
If you’re drowning you don’t clutch no straw
If you’re drowning you don’t clutch no straw
You don’t want to live you don’t want to cry no more
Well my trying ain’t done no good
I said my trying ain’t done no good
You don’t make no effort no not like you should
Lazy you just stay in bed
Lazy you just stay in bed
You don’t want no money
You don’t want no bread”
We discussed it before and you already linked to something which you believes backs up what you are saying. That’s fine. If you are correct, that means bdgwx, MikeR and Swanson are all wrong. Either way, I’m laughing.
DREMPT,
The problem is that because you don’t know the difference between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial reference frame, you can’t tell what kind Swanson, Bdgwx, or Mike R are using.
You still agree with Swanson?
“DRsEMT still doesnt know what an inertial reference frame is.”
Wrong, I know exactly what MikeR thinks is an inertial vs. a non-inertial reference frame. Here is one of his gifs on the subject:
https://postimg.cc/yJSxpwHx
It does not matter where you place the origin, bob. It depends where the axes are pointing to. You think you cannot place the origin through an accelerating object and it still be an inertial reference frame…MikeR does not agree with you. bdgwx does not agree with you. Swanson does not agree with you.
I love it. DRsEMT has just invalidated everything the troll has said about his ball-on-a-string claims. Given three examples in the graphic, version C shows a case with no rotation, i.e., the axis along the length of the dumbbell points in a constant direction. But, for version A (the ball-on-a-string case,) the dumbbell is seen to rotate in the inertial reference frame.
The ball-on-a-string, the aircraft (and satellites) flying around the Earth and the Moon all rotate once each circuit.
DREMT,
You have it wrong again.
MikeR has the inertial reference frame correct, on a non accelerating spot in the center of the gif.
the non-inertial frame is in reference to the rotating string, a moving and accelerating object.
MikeR agrees with me and is using the correct inertial and non-inertial reference frames.
The dumbbell appears to rotate on its own axis, from the inertial reference frame. The dumbbell is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. The axis is in the center of the circle the dumbbell is moving around, at the other end of the red “string”. As you can see by “zooming out” your reference frame, looking at the movement in the central part of the gif rather than the boxes at either side.
“MikeR agrees with me and is using the correct inertial and non-inertial reference frames.”
MikeR has placed the origin through the cm of the dumbbell. The dumbbell is an accelerating object, ergo according to you, this is a no-no. You are now contradicting yourself!
DREMT,
It says on the gif, relative to an external observer, you need to learn what that means instead of constantly trolling.
He did that to show the dumbbell is rotating with reference to the inertial reference frame centered on the not moving center of the rotating string.
You said:
“You can not center an inertial reference frame on an object that is accelerating.”
I have shown you a gif that MikeR has made, in which there is a box labelled “Inertial”. Inside the box, MikeR has shown a representation of an inertial reference frame where the origin has been placed through the cm of the dumbbell. The dumbbell is an accelerating object, since it is moving in a circle.
So, you disagree with MikeR. I agree with MikeR, in that I have no problem with the reference frame he is displaying as being an inertial one, since I am aware that it doesn’t matter if you center your inertial reference frame on an object that is accelerating.
DREMT,
In the gif, the inertial reference frame is not centered on the dumbbell, period, paragraph.
The gif is zooming in on the dumbbell to show whether or not it is rotating with respect to the inertial reference frame which is still centered on the center of the rotating string.
Keep doing it all wrong, you are so good at it.
Inside the box on the left is a depiction of an inertial reference frame with the origin placed through the cm of the dumbbell. To the right, in the central part of the overall gif, is a depiction of an inertial reference frame with the origin placed through the center of the dumbbell’s orbit. To the right of that, is another box, containing a depiction of a non-inertial reference frame with the origin placed through the cm of the dumbbell.
What’s DREMT doing on the end of a string in the gif?
I was just winning another argument, about reference frames this time.
DREMT,
No you were not, because you are too lazy to look up the difference between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial reference frame.
And you keep claiming you know what the difference is when it is clear that you don’t.
“I have shown you a gif that MikeR has made, in which there is a box labelled Inertial. Inside the box, MikeR has shown a representation of an inertial reference frame where the origin has been placed through the cm of the dumbbell. The dumbbell is an accelerating object, since it is moving in a circle.”
The box is still an inertial reference frame, but the origin has not been moved to the center of the little box, it is still the center of the rotating rope.
He has just zoomed in on the dumbbell to show whether of not it is rotating in the three different cases.
Here I looked it up for you.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/non-inertial-frame
You never think things through, bob. Let’s say MikeR’s gif was of the moon orbiting the Earth/moon barycenter instead of the dumbbell orbiting point x. He has made such gifs before. You are happy with MikeR’s dumbbell gif because you say the inertial reference frame he is referring to is centered on the middle of the dumbbell’s orbit, point x. But if MikeR’s gif was of the moon orbiting the Earth/moon barycenter…the barycenter is itself orbiting the sun! So the reference frame would be centered on a point x which is accelerating. So, to you, that would no longer be an inertial reference frame! Therefore MikeR’s entire point in using the dumbbell as an analogy for the moon’s motion fails.
DREMPT,
Mike’s gif is a simplification to show the tidal locking and synchronous rotation concepts.
“But if MikeRs gif was of the moon orbiting the Earth/moon barycenterthe barycenter is itself orbiting the sun! So the reference frame would be centered on a point x which is accelerating.”
But it’s not, and if my cat was a dog it could have puppies.
Back to the point, you were claiming that a reference frame thought the center of the Moon was inertial.
It’s not, and it’s not just my claim.
I provided references, now you are just being a flat-earther!
Anyway, the Moon rotates on it’s axis relative to the non-inertial reference frame centered on the Earth-Moon barycenter.
“Therefore MikeRs entire point in using the dumbbell as an analogy for the moons motion fails.”
No, because Mike’s gif show the Moon rotating in an inertial reference frame.
A garbled mess from bob which completely misses the point. Why bother!?
DREMT,
Here you go
https://www.tfes.org/
Childish as ever, bob.
DREMT,
You reject science just like flat-earthers.
They are your shoes, wear them.
What is an inertial reference frame again?
You are the only commenter here who has made statements such as “the Moon rotates on it’s axis relative to the non-inertial reference frame centered on the Earth-Moon barycenter“.
That should tell you something.
To clarify the following depiction which seems to have caused DREM so much confusion –
https://postimg.cc/KRgzyXfT
Unfortunately the following is very long winded due to the need to be explicit. Hopefully this will avoid DREM’s inevitable attempt to make his confusion a stupor spreader event.
The left hand side for each case shows the motion with the orbital position vector removed so that the left hand frame is stationary. What remains within the frame is the rotational motion around the centre of mass, with respect to the external reference frame, corresponding to directions.
The directional reference frame is invariant (see Galilean invariance) . Directions can be defined using sidereal astronomical co-ordinates. For instance, North for every location on Earth is the azimuthal direction of the north celestial pole, likewise for South with respect to the south celestial pole and W and E are 90 degrees from the N, S axis.
The right hand frames show the motion with the orbital position vector removed, so again, the position of the right hand frame is stationary. What remains within the frame is the rotational motion around the centre of mass with respect to the radial position vector.
To transform betwen frames for the right hand frame you need to subtract the motion of the relevant reference frame , in this case, the rotation rate of the orbital position vector (for the left hand case, as the motion of the directional reference frame is invariant , nothing has to be subtracted)
In the following Ra is the rotation of the dumbbell for case A. Rorb is the rotation rate of the orbital position vector. A negative indicates clockwise while positive is counter-clockwise.
for A
Ra = Rorb
Left side: RL =R cm = Ra
Right side: RR = R cm – R orb = Ra – R orb = 0
For B
Rb = – Rorb =- Ra
Left side: RL = Rcm = Rb = -Ra
Right side: RR = Rcm – Rorb = Rb – Rorb = – Ra – Ra = – 2 Ra ( twice the rotation rate of A, clockwise)
For C
Rc = 0 and Rorb = Ra
Left side: RL = Rcm = Rc = 0
Right side: RR = Rc – Rorb = 0 – Rorb = – Ra ( same rotation rate as A but clockwise) .
It has not caused me any confusion, MikeR.
“What remains within the frame is the rotational motion around the centre of mass, with respect to the external reference frame, corresponding to directions.”
What remains within the frame is the illusion of rotational motion around the center of mass. You cannot ever seem to see through this illusion, no matter how many times, and however carefully I explain it. In Case A, look at the central depiction – your dumbbell is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. That is what that motion looks like.
If you remove the “orbital position vector” then you remove the necessary context to appreciate that fact. It’s that simple!
DREM’s response immediately above,
reminds me of the expression -“the certitude of fools” .
This may sound foolish but DREM is certainly a fool.
Now, MikeR, perhaps you could help settle the dispute between bob and myself.
A reference frame is selected where, using polar co-ordinates, r=0 goes through the center of mass of the moon, and a=0 is pointing towards a fixed star. According to bdgwx and myself, this is an inertial reference frame. According to bob, it is a non-inertial reference frame.
As far as bdgwx and myself are concerned (we discussed this further upthread) it would only be a non-inertial reference frame if a=0 were fixed on the Earth, instead of a distant star.
What say you?
So DREM in your opinion the left hand frame are illusions while the right hand frames correspond to reality, or are both illusions?
I personally think the right hand depictions, that are referenced to the non inertial rotating frame, are related to the relative rotations that underly fictional forces.
See “Coriolis Free Throw” at
https://youtu.be/7TjOy56-x8Q
No, MikeR, I ignore the left-hand and the right-hand side boxes, personally. The central image in each case gives you all the information you need to determine the rate of axial rotation for each dumbbell, if indeed there is any axial rotation.
At first glance It sounds like you are misinterpreting Bob. However It is a bit hard to follow the sequence of comments as they jump from thread to thread.
My understanding of Bob’s comments is that they are in accordance with the following.
The centre of mass of the moon is orbiting in an approximate circle (i.e accelerating) and the reference frame of the orbit is therefore non inertial.
Subtraction of the orbital motion makes the left hand frame stationary and the rotational motion within is then referred to the invariant inertial reference frame of the star.
I will repeat that, since you seem to be beating around the bush:
A reference frame is selected where, using polar co-ordinates, r=0 goes through the center of mass of the moon, and a=0 is pointing towards a fixed star. According to bdgwx and myself, this is an inertial reference frame. According to bob, it is a non-inertial reference frame.
As far as bdgwx and myself are concerned (we discussed this further upthread) it would only be a non-inertial reference frame if a=0 were fixed on the Earth, instead of a distant star.
What say you?
P.S: either bob is wrong, or bdgwx is wrong. They do not get to both be right.
“According to bob, it is a non-inertial reference frame.”
What is the context of Bob’s statement? Which one are you referring to?
If he is referring to the reference frame of the orbital motion of the centre of mass, then he is correct.
DREM,
Your rejection of the left hand side frames suggest you have an aversion to decomposing separable components of the motion. This approach is the “bread and butter” of the mechanics section of introductory physics at senior school levels (rolling down an incline plane, a diver spinning on his axis etc..).
It is a great pity that you have never taken such a course, or if you have, you have forgotten it.
Anyway, here are some appropriate references that explicitly seperate the motion of the centre of mass and rotation around the centre of mass.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/science/physics/center-of-mass
and
https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/chapter20.pdf
See section 20.1 for a simple illustration.
In particular see Example 20.5 where the two motions are treated independently for an orbiting body. This is remarkably pertinent.
Also Appendix 20A gives more detailed explanation, in this case for translation of the centre of mass (20A.1) both linear and curvilinear motion , and rotation about the centre of mass (20A.2).
MikeR, please give a straight yes or no answer to the following questions:
1) Is a reference frame where r=0 goes through the center of mass of the moon, and a=0 is fixed on a distant star an inertial reference frame?
2) Is a reference frame where r=0 goes through the Earth/moon barycenter, and a=0 is fixed on a distant star an inertial reference frame?
3) Is a reference frame where r=0 goes through the center of mass of the moon, and a=0 is fixed on the Earth a non-inertial reference frame?
I am finding it difficult to answer your questions with a simple yes or no as I assume “a” refers to angle. In polar coordinates, the coordinate (r= 0 , angle=0) makes no sense.
Do you mean the direction of an axis passing through r=0 from +/-180 to 0 degrees?
As I understand it (it was bdgwx who came up with it) it just means the pole or origin is placed where r=0 and the axis coming from that aligns with where a=0 is pointed at. So in answer to your question I would hazard a tentative yes. But I would not want to misrepresent bdgwx.
Yes DREM,
I guess we can assume this what was meant. We could then refer to it , for my dumbbell depictions, in screen coordinates as a vertical line that intersects the rotation axis ( which is perpendicular to the screen) at r = 0.
I have just now briefly perused some of the discussions upstream regarding reference frames and my head is spinning and I eventually got rather bored. Consequently I don’t know if I have anything particularly useful to add to those long winded disputes other than the following.
Absent an orbiting Moon , putting r = 0 at the centre of a non rotating Earth (or at a non rotating barycentre) and angle = 0 provides an inertial reference frame. However the inclusion of non inertial elements such as a rotating Earth and orbiting Moon changes matters drastically. This is another reason why the rigid body analogy to the Moon/Earth was ridiculous.
p.s. your reference above to “a rotationally inertial frame” is an oxymoron. Maybe you meant “a rotational non inertial frame” but that could be a tautology.
Further postscript to the above, I now recall that someone in the discussions above made the claim that the axis the Earth rotates about daily,is centred on the sun*!
I can only assume that this person was joking, or perhaps heavily inebriated and affected by illicit substances. Otherwise the person making this claim is certifiably insane.
* this is taking the rigid body concept to extremes. Now we have spokes between the sun and Earth. Why not? Maybe there are elephants and turtles involved as well.
The answer is yes to all three questions, at least it is according to bdgwx. See his comments of November 9 at 3:58 PM and November 10 at 11:39 AM.
Ok good to know.
By the way DREM are you familiar with the strange fellow who believes the Earth’s rotational axis passes through the centre of the sun?
He appears to have hijacked your pseudonym. I suggest you change to something new.
My suggestion is TBSAFKADREMT (The Bull Shit Artist Formerly Known As DREMT).
The Earth has two rotational axes, one passing through the Earth/sun barycenter, and one passing through the cm of the Earth itself.
Oh good, it wasn’t you. That’s a relief.
Are you planning to change your pseudonym to ensure this doesn’t happen again?
Quote my exact words where you believe this happened.
DREMT
bdgwx “DREMT, where are you thinking we should put the r=0 point to determine Earths rotation about its own axis if not through Earths center of mass?”
This was your response* directly after the above post (41 minutes later).
“You can put it through the center of mass of the sun”.
You should have gone, with the “my account was hacked” story.
* https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-550107
MikeR says:
”Further postscript to the above, I now recall that someone in the discussions above made the claim that the axis the Earth rotates about daily,is centred on the sun*!
I can only assume that this person was joking, or perhaps heavily inebriated and affected by illicit substances. Otherwise the person making this claim is certifiably insane.”
—————————————-
well since it appears you are the only one around here imagining anybody said that perhaps you should get somebody to commit you.
Or is you are just trying to erect another strawman?
So, as expected, MikeR was unable to find a quote of me saying that Earths daily rotational axis goes through the sun.
DREM,
Great attempt at revisionist history.
Why did you directly answer to a question about rotation about the Earth’s axis with the answer that it passes through the center of mass of the sun? Very curious.
On that note, DREM do you still believe that rigid body is an accurate description, or even an appropriate analogy, to the Earth/Moon system?
I was answering a question on where to put the origin of an inertial reference frame in order to determine if the Earth was rotating on its own axis or not. Read the rest of the discussion. In fact, just read the rest of the comment you partially quoted.
To answer your question on the rigid body analogies:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
Another attempt to evade by the Master. DREM, this is your entire comment ( from which I quoted your first sentence).
“You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.”
The remainder of your comment doesn’t seem to change anything regarding your statement about the axis of rotation of the earth being inside the sun.
However DREM, I am particularly glad that you agree that the rigid body is not an accurate description but just an analogy*. You should let your colleague Bill know.
* Analogies tend to be much more useful if they 1. do not result in logical inconsistencies, such as the Earth rotating at the same rate as orbital rate of the moon (or sun) and 2. they can account for the elliptical orbit of the moon.
I never made a statement that the axis of Earth’s rotation is in the sun. You were unable to quote me saying that, remember!?
Oh, Methinks DREM doth protest too much. However I have to take DREMs word and that it was someone else who hijacked his account.
Anyway, DREM I am very happy to note, has accepted (with out any sign of protest) that the rigid body is not an appropriate description of the Earth/Moon system and that is just meant to be an analogy.
Let Bill know as he doesnt seem ready to accept this.
Nobody hijacked my account, I simply did not say what you are accusing me of saying. When I said, “you can put it through the center of mass of the sun”, the “it” referred to was the origin (r=0 point) of an inertial reference frame, as I explained. With the reference frame as established, you can then see from the fact that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun, that it is rotating on its own axis. Its axis being located in the cm of the Earth.
DREM, so what was the point of r=0 as the origin of a reference frame at the center of the sun, other than to establish it as the centre of rotation of both the Earth’s axis and orbit?
Your comments about zooming out to Frame 2 suggest this is what you were thinking. It is also in accordance with a rigid body hypothesis for the sun/Earth system but I do note that this was prior to you disowning this hypothesis*, so all is forgiven.
p.s. I do seem to recall the rigid body argument via wooden horses on a merry-go-around (along with lunar spokes and pivoting plates) was among DREM’s most recurring motifs. Hopefully this will be the last we see of the horses , but with DREM anything is possible.
* http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556445
“DREM, so what was the point of r=0 as the origin of a reference frame at the center of the sun”
Once again:
“With the reference frame as established, you can then see from the fact that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun, that it is rotating on its own axis. Its axis being located in the cm of the Earth.”
Mike is getting desperate and it appears he is even into making up Isaac Newton quotes now as well.
DREM, all is good now that you have clarified that you no longer believe the rigid body concept ( and accordingly wooden horses et,,) is an inappropriate description of orbital motion.
Bill you should take note.
Sorry I should rephrase the above to-
DREM, all is good now that you have clarified that you no longer believe the rigid body concept ( and accordingly wooden horses etc,,) is an appropriate description of orbital motion.
Bill you should still take note.
Yes, bill, MikeR is desperate alright.
So DREM, just in case I missed something, are you still a believer in the rigid body concept to describe the Earth/Moon system?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
“To answer your question on the rigid body analogies:”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
DREM , the content in that link appears to be a bit equivocal, arguing mostly for but finally against.
So with regard to the rigid body concept of the Earth/Moon system, is that a yes or no?
What “rigid body concept of the Earth/moon system”? You mean the straw man you keep attacking?
DREM,
Feigning ignorance is not going to get you terribly far.
The rigid body concept is embodied in examples such as the wooden horses on a merry-go-around, lunar spokes of the Tesla variety and pivoting plates a la Madhavi. These are some of the things we have been discussing, on an ongoing basis, for the past 4 months or so*.
Now that you have been reacquainted with the concept, do you think it is an accurate description of the mechanics of the Earth/Moon system?
Again, a yes or no would suffice.
* maybe it was another imposter that participated in these discussions.
So you mean the simple analogies?
OK, so my answer on those is, for the third time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
DREMT writes: “This is the “illusion” Tesla referred to.”
And Tesla “endeavored” to dispel that abstract idea of the illusion of moon’s non-rotation on its own axis: “This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
Tesla does agree the moon’s KE is divided into two parts as Tesla writes:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
All from DREMT’s own self-debunking ref. at 11:23am.
DREM, it is wonderful that you have conceded that the rigid body concept , embodied by the wooden horses example, is only a simple analogy and presumablynot meant be taken too seriously.
Accodingly I think we can safely assume it fits the “false analogy fallacy”, corresponding to this type of example –
1. my cat has ears, 2. I have ears and 3. therefore I am a cat.
In DREM’s favourite analogy.
1. Only one side of the horses on the merry-go-round are visible from the centre as the MGR rotates, 2. Only one side of the Moon is visible from the Earth as the Moon orbits and 3. Therefore the horses on the MGR and the Moon Earth system are essentially identical.
Of course for the cat analogy, the differences are obvious as firstly I lack a tail ( but perhaps I could be a Manx cat) and secondly cannot miaow convincingly.
For the MGR analogy the differences are just as obvious as, firstly the Earth does not rotate at the same rate as the Moon orbits ( c.f. all parts of the MGR which rotate at the same rate) and secondly the Moon travels in an elliptical orbit and therefore orbits at different speeds at different parts of the orbit (which is clearly impossible for wooden horses rigidly attached to a platform).
The other favourite rigid body analogies, such as lunar spokes and Madhavian pivoting plates are for the same reasons, just as ludicrous.
I once again , hope this euthanises the whole ridiculous moon non rotating b.s. but DREM and his partner(s) in crime will assuredly carry on regardless. That’s whya bunch of zombies is such an appropriate description for this mob.
Poor MikeR. Either unable to read a linked comment, or unable to understand it. Oh well. I don’t mind.
The zombie mob.
Now there’s a good analogy MikeR. Even their hero Tesla endeavored to show them their abstract ideas about moon non-rotation on its own axis are dead.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
Those dead ideas are dispelled by Tesla DREMT; that link is just another futile zombie mob comment.
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
swannie…”ircraft (and orbiting satellites) have 3 axes in inertial space to define rotation, roll, pitch and yaw”.
Give it up, Swannie, this is a simple problem you can easily visualize. I specified the jetliner is flying at 35,000 feet with constant velocity. If it went up or down, the velocity would change. If it rotated even slightly on its nose-tail axis it would start to climb, provided thrust was applied to accelerate, or go down under the effect of gravity.
If it rotated completely about its COG, along the nose-tail axis, it would crash. Never mind your moron ad homs, just look.
Gordo, I worked as a satellite design engineer for 4 years after receiving a Masters degree. I also briefly attended graduate school in the Aerospace department and have some training as a pilot. From your reply, it;s clear that you have no clue about what’s being discussed. Your so-called “nose-to-tail” axis is the roll axis. Your model “nose up or nose down” describes the pitch axis. As the aircraft rounds the Earth, it must slowly pitch down to follow the curvature of the surface.
E. Swanson, you have nothing.
Claiming a bunch of crap you can’t substantiate amounts to nothing.
As it now stands, you were a junior assistant janitor. You were unable to advance higher. We know that because your science is so terrible.
DRsEMT obviously has never tried to build a complex machine. In the old days, one started by drawing the device and it’s parts on paper. To do so, one must first decide how to layout the drawing on paper by defining the coordinate system within which one is working. Now days, one is likely to use a computer based CAD system, which might be extended into 3 dimensions for proper fitting of the various elements of the design. Recent programs can take the CAD drawings and render then as a visual picture of the device. When I started to build my house 22 years ago, I used such a program to layout the house and take a visual “virtual tour” within it before I even started the foundation.
Ever built a model for a simple 3-D printer? One implements the idea with a CAD system in 3 dimensions, then converts it into the necessary code to drive the painting process, layer by layer. Lots of fun, though the simple systems have some limitations.
Sorry to say, you kids with your school yard taunts are still morons with lots to learn.
Nice ramble, but you addressed it to the wrong person.
Swanny,
Dont be ridiculous! If the aircraft pitches down, it loses altitude, and crashes. People have piloted balloons around the world. How did they manage that? No pitch adjustments, no roll adjustments, no yaw adjustments, either. Just up and down.
You really live in a fantasy world at least some of the time, obviously.
Every pilot knows when flying a long flight you have to push the nose down every once in a while in order to follow the Earth curvature and not fly off into space , I know, I am one.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea
DRsEMT/ClintR, The link given agrees with my claim, for example, the first post:
Note that the controller, be it a pilot or auto pilot, strives to maintain constant altitude, the result being a small pitch down rate as the craft flies around the Earth. As a result, there is one rotation about the pitch axis for each transit around the Earth.
“There is no adjustment needed as the aircraft will naturally follow the curvature of the earth without any input from the pilot. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature of the earth.”
Another quote from the link.
DRsEMT, Even were it true that trim setting was perfect, the aircraft would still follow a constant altitude path around the Earth, rotating once about the pitch axis as a result.
Rotating once around the cm of the Earth as a result. Not rotating on its own axis.
swannie…”As the aircraft rounds the Earth, it must slowly pitch down to follow the curvature of the surface”.
It pitches down very slightly only to give the passengers an experience of a slight lift due to countering gravity. As you know, if the plane suddenly loses altitude due to turbulence, those not strapped in their seats can hit the sealing. Same effect but controlled.
If the jetliner is moving at constant velocity, gravity will drag it into a curved path just as it does the Moon as long as its velocity is not so high that it breaks free of gravitational force. If there is insufficient velocity the plane will fall.
Your entire argument about inertial frames is a red-herring argument that has been used by spinner to get around the obvious fact that the airliner cannot rotate about its COG without catastrophic results. In order to rotate once, the nose would have to rotate 360 degrees around the COG, which would mean at one point the nose would be pointed straight down and at another time straight up.
It is impossible for that to happen over an entire orbit because all parts of the plane are moving in parallel lines representing the tangent lines to concentric circles. At all times, the bottom end of the plane must face the Earth to maintain a 35,000 foot altitude.
It is you who does not understand reference frames. If there is no rotation ABOUT AN AXIS/COG, in one reference frame there is no rotation about an axis/COG in any reference frame.
If you view the Moon from a point external to the Earth wrt the stars, it does change direction. However, that change in direction is the same as a car following a curving highway. The Moon is merely following the constraints of its elliptical orbit, a result of gravity bending its linear momentum into an orbit.
I suppose, in futility, you’d regard a race car on an oval track as rotating about its centre of gravity per lap. To do that, its tires would have to leave the track since that’s partially why they are on the vehicle, to prevent it rotating about its COG on curves.
Have you ever seen a race car do a 360 on a track? The front end completely rotates about the COG through 360 degrees.
E. Swanson continues to prove himself an idiot. He can’t even understand the link he found. It has to be explained to him.
That’s why he never advanced higher than Junior Assistant Janitor.
Gordo continues to demonstrate his abject failure to understand physics, writing:
Wildly incorrect. Selecting a coordinate set fixed in the body of the aircraft will not demonstrate rotation in pitch or roll compared with one using local, Earth based coordinates (i.e.,Z == “up”), since pitch and roll are defined relative to the Earth based system. Of course, neither is an inertial reference frame, as both are rotating WRT the stars.
Swanso continues to demonstrate his abject failure to understand physics…Swanso, reference frames do not dictate reality. They are just differing mental constructs through which you can perceive that reality. An object may appear to be rotating on its own axis in a particular reference frame, but that can just be an illusion.
You need to consider where the axis of rotation is for the body in question. Does the axis of rotation go through the body? If not, does the object rotate about an external axis as well as about its own center of mass? Or is it just rotating about an external axis? These are the sort of questions you need to start asking. The airplane is rotating about the cm of the Earth, and not on its own axis, regardless of how it may appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame.
Correct. Reference frames have no physical reality. They can’t apply torque to an object.
Defining torque via a perspective is precisely the kind of mistake that reference frames were invented to prevent. So there is no larger possible bastardization of the concept of reference frames to start using them to invent stuff.
That is the number one stumbling block in the brains of the spinners with an incessant retreat to denial that the non-spinners claim no rotation. Thats truly the only way they can seem to approach the subject, by building non-rotational strawmen which over the months here has occurred thousands of times with no sign of cessation.
An object that comes to be rotating around an external object is subjected to the simplest concept of torque. . . .a lever arm extending from the rotational axis. Orbital angular momentum encompasses the entire enchilada.
Our ‘spinners’ have struggled mightily with that concept alternatively recognizing orbital angular momentum in one breath then denying it in another as some kind of path.
Likewise with the concept of rigidity. They will recognize it in one breath for solid objects and deny it in a heartbeat if its merely held together electromagnetically via gravity when ultimately that’s what holds rigid objects together too.
And then finally unlike our ball and string, all objects in the universe apparently has held an angular momentum from the birth of the universe. . . .and like an iceskater extending and pulling back in her arms the orbit period changes based upon that inherent angular momentum.
the earth also will stop its independent spin. I often hear claims of gravity slowing rotation to a spin rate that corresponds to the orbital rotation rate. But for objects rotating in the opposite direction their rotation must be reversed to get in sync with the lever arm of gravity.
Here is an interesting article on spin in the universe.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/do-all-galaxies-spin-in-the-same-direction/#:~:text=Hence%2C%20if%20we%20look%20out,spin%20direction%20is%20actually%20random.
https://tenor.com/view/snore-snoring-sleep-sleeping-gif-11169826
b hunter, Of course, a coordinate system, aka, a reference frame, is a man made mathematical construct. Our Lat-Lon polar coordinate system is an example, there is no real place called “the Equator” or the North Pole, both are just places on paper maps. That said, I’m sure you would agree that the Lat-Lon system, though artificial, is extremely useful. But, for satellite operations, that coordinate system creates problems, since it rotates with the Earth while satellite orbits have inertial qualities.
Philosophically, to define rotation, one must first define that which is not rotating to use as a reference. Similarly, an “axis of rotation” of a free body is also undefined without first defining the angular rotation in three dimensions, given the selected coordinate system. The important distinction between any coordinate system and one which is an inertial frame is the fact that the vector representation of a rotating body as measured in the inertial reference frame which remains pointed in fixed directions WRT sky, absent the influences of gravity from other nearby bodies. Location, velocities, forces and torques must also be defined against some coordinate system, else they have no meaning. Your hand waving about “torques” and “lever arms” inherently includes some sort of coordinate system in any definition.
The basic failure of the “non-spinners” is their selection of a reference frame for their mental models. Whether they realize it or not, they have selected a coordinate system with the Earth-Moon vector as one axis. Thus, they are able to claim correctly that the Moon does not rotate in that reference frame. But, they are ignoring the fact that the Earth-Moon vector is itself rotating once an orbit and, as a result, their conclusion that the Moon does not rotate is flat out WRONG.
There is no claim that the moon does not rotate. The claim is, and always has been, that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e about its own center of mass.
The moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter. The motion is called “orbiting”. In “orbital motion without axial rotation”, the same face of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout.
Nothing to do with reference frames.
Another excellent summation by E.Swanson.
Some other pertinent references with respect to spacecraft are
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/10/03/how-does-the-iss-travel-around-the-earth/?sh=2b9050b0141f
“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.
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.”
and –
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/19718/does-the-iss-have-a-rotational-motion-in-addition-to-its-translational-motion
“Since the same side of the ISS is always facing down towards the earth, every time it orbits once around the Earth, it rotates once around its axis.
Actually, every time an ocean liner travels around the Earth once, it has also rotated around it’s port-starboard axis. A better example would be a plane, it slowly rotates around the axis through it’s wings as it travels around the Earth.”
E. Swanson says:
”Philosophically, to define rotation, one must first define that which is not rotating to use as a reference.”
———————————
You have a real problem there E as everything is rotating. so you want to teach me physics via pretending something isn’t rotating? Seems to me rotation is defined by a form of energy termed angular momentum. So rather than all the silly pretend something is what it isn’t stuff, simply put out there mathematically. I suspect when you do that you will not have differentiated anything and all you are left with is the reality of the moon going around the earth rather than vice versa.
Bill,
Again you post goolbbledegook physics. You must go up to the attic and find your dusty old high school book.
“An object that comes to be rotating around an external object is subjected to the simplest concept of torque. . . .a lever arm extending from the rotational axis. Orbital angular momentum encompasses the entire enchilada.”
Lets use something familiar to jog your memory. A wrench is a lever arm. To us it to apply torque to a bolt, we
a. Attach it rigidly tonthe bolt.
b. Apply a SIDEWAYS FORCE perpendicular to the lever arm (wrench). Torque is the product of the SIDEWAYS FORCE and the length of the LEVER ARM.
In your description there is neither a. nor b. happening. No rigid attachment, and certainly gravity is applying no SIDEWAYS FORCE!
well Nate you are pretty rusty on it all. You must have been unemployable after college.
The classic example of torque is a lever arm and an object traveling a linear path colliding with the lever arm.
Gravity doesn’t provide a sideways force. Gravity only provides the lever arm. Study the problem a bit and you will realize that the force is provided by the speed of the object and while gravity provides the lever arm. And no the lever arm isn’t rigid in space its only rigid in relationship to the mass of the object that exerts the gravity. But if you study any real world problem the same relationship ultimately exists for everything. Archimedes: ”Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I will move the world.” If you really want to learn physics you need to forget a lot you think you know and get off the rote learning bandwagon on start visualizing what is happening.
For example, simpletons take ”rotating around it’s axis” as just one possibility for an axis, but the correct possibility isn’t delineated via the use of a pronoun with no reference. Objects have the potential of an infinite number of axes. And do rotate around so many things, infinite is a handy way of describing it. For example there is a barycenter for every possible pair of objects in the universe.
You need to step away from all you concepts of absolutes like ‘fixed stars’, ‘axes only in the center of objects’, ‘absolute rigidity’ vs ‘rigid enough’, particles of chalk rotating on an axis in the center of their masss when on a merry-go-round, balls on a string doing the same, science is settled. . . .etc.
“The classic example of torque is a lever arm and an object traveling a linear path colliding with the lever arm.”
Well that does happen. The collision results in a slowing of the travelling object. That requires a Force to be applied on the travelling object parallel to its velocity. Newtons 3rd law says there will be an equal and opposite force on the lever arm, and perpendicular to it.
So we are back to the basic force being applied perpendicular to the lever arm, giving torque.
But with no collision of anything in this problem, that cant happen.
Where is the collision? Where is perpendicular force?
Nate perhaps you are unaware that everything in the universe is rotating around other stuff.
The perpendicular force obviously occurred during the creation. . . .the big bang. . . .or some other collision that occurred since.
Just because you can’t see it today doesn’t mean it never existed Nate. Perhaps you need to brush up some on the Universe. I think the favorite version is currently some object about the size of Mars collided with earth and gouged out the moon. That would be one helluva a perpendicular force doncha think?
Bill: You said this “An object that comes to be rotating around an external object is subjected to the simplest concept of torque.”
Now you are contradicting that and saying that rotation exists since the beginning of time. and back then there was torque.
“The perpendicular force obviously occurred during the creation. . . .the big bang. . . .or some other collision that occurred since.”
so no longer is an object “subjected to the simplest concept torque.???
Well, then your original post has no point whatsoever.
It is all very vague and confusing. Its intended to hide the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you cannot backup your claims.
The claims are backed up just fine. Its your own problem that you cannot even understand them well enough to point out exactly what you object to.
Gordon,
The nose of your jetliner rotates down 1 degree for every 69 miles traveled.
So after it has traveled 24901 miles it has rotated 1 complete rotation as it has circled the earth.
The jetliner “orbits”. It does not rotate on its own axis.
You stick with riding your wooden unicorn on the carousel, leave airplanes piloting to me
Since you seem worried that your airplane might fly off into space unless you push the nose down, I think I would feel safer not leaving the piloting to you.
Since a jetliner can not achieve orbital velocity, no it is not orbiting.
It can rotate though, pitch, yaw, and roll.
You may have noticed the quotes around “orbits”.
Well then, if it doesn’t orbit, then it is free to rotate around any of its axes, it can pitch, yaw, or roll.
Ask any pilot.
Heck, ask 21 pilots, they may even give you the right answer.
It is free to rotate, yes. Indeed, it rotates about the cm of the Earth. It does not rotate on its own axis.
I fly a lot, an guarantee they pitch, yaw and roll. And rotate on their axes.
We are talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the airplane is flying around the Earth. What has roll and yaw got to do with it?
DRsEMT, So, tell us how an aircraft changes direction without roll and yaw. Don’t know? Search “coordinated turn”.
Swanson, do you enjoy being an idiot?
How does Moon change direction? You don’t know because you can’t learn.
The interaction of gravity and linear momentum change Moon’s direction. It’s the same for the ball on a string, where the string acts as gravity.
The string doesn’t act as force of gravity, the string acts by force of tension, a failed analogy causing ClintR to draw many inaccurate conclusions.
That’s a new record level of stupidity for Ball4.
The aircraft does not need to change direction, Swanson. That’s the whole point. It is just flying in one direction around the planet.
The aircraft does not need to change course in an accelerated non-inertial Earth frame; it does continuously change course in the inertial frame. DREMT doesn’t understand the difference.
#2
The aircraft does not need to change direction, Swanson. That’s the whole point. It is just flying in one direction around the planet.
dremt…”The aircraft does not need to change direction, Swanson. Thats the whole point. It is just flying in one direction around the planet”.
Exactly the same as if there was a roadway right around the Equator and the plane taxied on its wheels right around the world. Of course. the spinners will claim it is still rotating on its axis. And Swannie will lay crap on us about roll and yaw, and inertial guidance systems. Ball4 will sputter about inertial reference frames.
bobd…”The nose of your jetliner rotates down 1 degree for every 69 miles traveled”.
I imagine the Moon does the same and it has no pilot. It is gravity adjusting its rotation ABOUT THE EARTH’S COG, not about the plane’s COG.
The stupid it burns
Well, try to be less stupid.
I rather like NASA and theIr mystical forces.* The Moon undergoes a motion called “libration” which causes it to rock slightly back and forth relative to a line connecting the centers of the Earth and the Moon. *
Gee. Who would have thought that Moon rocks back and forth – at the same time as spinning on its axis, and rocking up and down for latitudinal libration!
Maybe it is all just perception, and the Moon just falls towards the Earth? Maybe Newton was right. No supernatural forces pushing the Moon around, up and down, back and forth.
Who cares, anyway? Climate donkeys, trying their silly diversionary tactics, that’s who!
swenson…”I rather like NASA and theIr mystical forces”.
Recently read a book by a NASA astronaut who has worked on the space stations doing repairs and adjustments. The guy is qualified as a medical doctor and an engineer but it blows me away how conforming astronauts are to authority. Even in space, they have teams and team leaders who constantly monitor what they are doing. The team leaders are monitored from ground control. Lot of politics and butt kissing goes on.
I am not taking shots at NASA in general, I am sure there are brilliant people in their space program. However, there are some highly qualified, seriously immature people in the program, as you quote above reveals.
This is interesting , SS25 predicted to be bigger than ever
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15263.pdf
So wait for it while arguing flat Moon
eben…”This is interesting , SS25 predicted to be bigger than ever ”
Wonder if it’s causing the contagions blamed on covid. Wouldn’t that be something, sunspots responsible for seasonal flu.
Eben
Thank you for this link, sounds interesting, even surprising.
I’m actually reading a technical document written in 1748 by Tobias Mayer, about 130 pages long. Hard work, no time let alone energy to read anything else.
J.-P. D.
Don’t thank, send money
Gordon Robertson says:
November 20, 2020 at 6:25 PM
snape…”I call BS on this because the gravitational field is a vector field and thus has a gradient which is defined as the directional derivative. Its been a few years since Ive done Calculus…”
No, it’s not defined as a directional derivative. It is a static field and the derivative of a constant is 0. A derivative only applies to a continuous function, representing the instantaneous rate of change of the function. There is no instantaneous rate of change for a gravitational vector field because it is fixed by altitude.
The field is fixed at 9.8 Newtons/kilogram with the newton (force) value changing with altitude based on the inverse square law.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
As Fordone Gordon demonstrates here, the through-line with the non-spinners is that they do not have the knowledge or intelligence to deal with a complex real world. They are inventors of infantile fanfiction whereby for everything to make sense it has to be stripped of nuance, so it conforms to their head-in-the-sand ethos.
Of course the gravitational field is a vector field. Not only that, but it is a conservative field and thus has a gradient.
That is, literally, the definition of a conservative vector field, the field can be written as the gradient of a potential function.
If you are wondering what a conservative is, you just need to know that the fundamental forces of physics, gravity and magnetism for example, give conservative fields.
Snape, the simple analogy of a ball on a string wipes out all of your diversionary efforts?
Speaking of the ball on a string, how would you calculate the near side velocity of the ball? And the far side? Are they the same? And what about the moon? You never provided any calculations, just bs.
Those questions are beyond Tonto the clown’s capabilities; hence no answers!
The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed. Both the ball and Moon are orbiting, not rotating about their axes.
And, at no additional cost, “tidal locking” is a hoax.
The far side travels a longer distance than the near side, during the same amount of time. They cannot have the same velocity, genius.
You don’t understand the motions involved, SGW. Both sides have the same instantaneous speed as Moon is instantaneously being turned by the forces acting on it.
It’s the same as a ball on a string. Do you believe one side of Moon makes the orbit before the other side?
You likely believe such nonsense, because you’re an idiot.
ClintR writes the near side and far side moon have same angular speed but the moon is not rotating. Just another comment failure showing ClintR self-debunking since ClintR has the moon both rotating on its own axis and not rotating on its own axis in the same comment.
Moon has angular speed due to its orbital motion. All points of Moon have the same angular speed.
There is no way Ball4 and other idiots can understand basic physics.
The radius of the orbit is different for front side and far side of the moon and ClintR writes “All points of Moon have the same angular speed” which is just another physics failure in a long “string” of physics failures for ClintR.
Aparrently DREMT agrees that:
“The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed.”
Poor dopey ClintR never provides a calculation or formula to back up his statements. Where is the formula? Show your work.
(he won’t of course)
Formula? What makes SGW believe he can understand a formula?
Vcom = dScom/dt = dSfar/dt = dSnear/dt
Which proves that object is rotating on its own axis. Another ClintR self-debunk.
Clint,
Now do the calculation to show you actually understand the formula. Because obviously you don’t, because the equations you wrote are wrong.
Clint,
Hint. There is only ONE equation. Now do the calculation Einstein, to prove your point.
The equations ClintR wrote are wrong for Earth’s moon but not for another rotating on its own axis moon in a planetary orbit.
SGW and Ball4 confuse themselves with the simple formula and simple analogy.
Surprise, surprise, surprise….
ClintR fails miserably again. The far side edge of the ball is on a concentric circle with a larger circumference than the concentric circle for the near side edge. The orbit time is the same for each, therefore the velocity for the far side edge will be greater.
And DREMT agrees with this fool! LMAO.
Yes, the ball is orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
It’s the same motion as Moon.
ClintR,
Are you saying
“Vcom = dScom/dt = dSfar/dt = dSnear/dt”
That the velocity Vcom is equal to the derivative of speed with respect to time?
is dScom/dt the derivative of speed with respect to time.
Please clarify and I’ll give you a mulligan either way.
bob, “dS” is the incremental change in distance. All points on Moon have the same incremental change in distance, due to its incremental linear momentum. You are confused by orbital motion. Moon has two “changes” happening at once. One change is “dS”. The other change is a incremental change in direction due to gravity. Moon’s orbit is the resultant of both changes.
That’s one of the reasons we know Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. It is only orbiting, like the ball on a string.
ClintR,
Well that’s good that you weren’t using dS for speed.
Still this is incorrect
“dScom/dt = dSfar/dt = dSnear/dt”
because
dSfar/dt > dScom/dt > dSnear/dt
because the far side is moving faster because it travels farther than the center of mass which is moving faster because it travels farther than the near side.
You weren’t expected to understand, bob. I knew when I had to explain what “dS” was that it was WAY over your head.
Yeah ClintR,
You don’t understand that a larger ellipse is bigger than a smaller ellipse.
According to you all ellipses are the same size.
The stupid, it burns!
That’s your pea-brain talking again, bob.
ClintR,
It follows directly from your statement
Vcom = dScom/dt = dSfar/dt = dSnear/dt
Where you incorrectly claim the near side of the Moon is traveling at the same velocity as the far side and the center of mass.
You are having some troubles with math and physics.
skeptic…”Speaking of the ball on a string, how would you calculate the near side velocity of the ball? And the far side? Are they the same”
Both sides have the same angular velocity of the string. If you want particle velocity, it’s irrelevant on a rigid body. Same for a rigid body attached to a string.
No it is not irrelevant on a rigid body. It is calculable. The far edge of the ball moves on a concentric circle larger than the near side edge. So the circumference is larger, therefore the velocity for the far side edge is larger than the near side edge because the orbit time is the same. ClintR does not get that.
One of the things confusing SGW is that he’s referencing to the center of orbit. And that is relevant to orbiting, not rotating about an axis.
He’s somehow trying to use the fact that Moon is orbiting to “prove” Moon is also rotating about its axis.
He seems to thrive on being confused.
No it’s not irrelevant that the near side moves slower in terms of linear velocity than the far side.
What’s the matter, you guys can’t do the calculation, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the Moon is rotating.
So it don’t fly apart.
ClintR is realizing the mess he is in. Velocities are calculated based on the inertial reference frame. He has not provided any calculations whatsoever. I have. So he is looking dumber by the moment. Even DREMT has refused to support his stupidity.
Yeah, I think he just made a gargantuan gaff, there when he posted some equation.
I’ll give him a chance to correct himself.
Then I’ll toss him some shovels.
bob, you don’t need shovels, you need air hoses. Your ship has sunk. You’re WAY underwater.
Complete answer here, not that idiots can understand:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-557379
ClintR,
The far side of the Moon is still moving faster than the near side.
Because it’s the near side and it is closer than the far side.
The near side traces an ellipse with a smaller perimeter and since it takes the same amount of time to travel the ellipse it moves slower.
Which proves the Moon is rotating since different parts are moving at different speeds and the Moon doesn’t come apart.
It’s like the outside of the merry-go-round moves faster than the inside.
Wrong again, bob. A sphere rotating about its axis would have opposite sides moving in different directions. Moon does NOT have that motion.
You don’t know squat about orbital motion.
ClintR,
No it would not necessarily have that motion.
Why don’t you do the calculation to show that to be a fact?
I have previously shown the calculation that shows the far side to be moving faster than the near side.
I could do that again and then compare the speed of the near side with respect to rotation and with respect to orbiting and see if what you say is true or not.
But as an exercise, lets see if you can do that calculation.
Assuming the Moon rotates once every 27 days, calculate the surface speed due to rotation.
Calculate the surface speed of the near and far side, assuming the Moon revolves around the Earth once every 27 days.
Yes, it would necessarily have that motion, bob. If Moon were actually rotating about its axis. But, it’s only orbiting.
Just like the ball on a string.
ClintR,
You didn’t do the calculations, so you have no support for your argument.
You are arguing that all ellipses have the same length of their perimeter.
Or all circles have the same circumference.
The ball on a string, the outside moves farther than the inside because it has a larger radius
C = 2 * pi * r
And the inside of the ball, is just the length of the string.
The outside of the ball, is the length of the string plus the diameter of the ball.
So the outside of the ball travels farther each revolution, so it is moving faster.
So the ball on a string rotates on its axis so that it doesn’t come apart.
So Clint punts again, unable to perform a simple calculations.
And the normal chatty DREMT is strangely silent.
A ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, not on its own axis. Until all “Spinners” can agree with Bindidon and Norman on that, I don’t see the point in this endless back and forth.
No bob, you and SGW are wrapped around your axles, again.
What I’m saying is Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. It has the same motion as a ball on a string — orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis.
You two are getting all twisted up trying to pervert reality. It’s the same as you’re attempting with the “tidal locking” debunk. You are willing to deny the science of Galileo and NASA astronauts to defend your cult nonsense.
DREMT says: “I don’t see the point in this endless back and forth.”
I agree DREMT. They aren’t learning. They just keep believing something that is not rotating is really rotating. They reject reality.
What’s interesting is that some have deserted the sinking ship. Obviously there are different levels of “idiot”. Some are smarter than others.
The subject of this discussion is a ball on a string. ClintR stated:
“The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed.”
Which is an erroneous statement. The far side of the ball travels on a larger concentric circle than the near side, during the same orbit time. Therefore the far side of the ball has a greater velocity than the near side. It would be the same with the moon, assuming a circular orbit.
And DREMT agrees with Clint.
It just goes to show what we have been saying all along. The flat earthers do not abide by the normal kinematic conventions. The have to redefine terms, make up their own language, and create new terms to suit their views. And its hilarious that Clint cannot even perform a simple tangential velocity problem.
I don’t know why they can’t get it through their heads that some of the people on their own side of the argument agree with us that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. They’re in denial of that like they’re in denial of everything else.
No DREMT, you are incorrect, NONE of the people on their own side of the argument agree with the team. Not even NASA nor any astronauts agree with the team as ClintR writes about.
I mean how hard is it to solve v=rw?
SGW, I clearly explained the speeds here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-557227
With further effort to help bob, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-557379
I have explained. It’s your job to understand.
Clint,
Apparently v=rw IS too hard to solve.
From your equations you believe the far side, com, and near side orbital path of a ball on a string are equal, i.e. they travel on the same circular path, with the same radius. They don’t. They travel on concentric circles which have a different circumferences, therefore different velocities. This is hilarious.
Denying the moon rotates on its axis is one thing. But denying v=rw takes the cake.
How can one converse with people that have such an alternate sense of reality.
No SGW, the equations don’t show that.
What is shown is that you can’t understand the motions involved. You can’t learn, and you reject reality.
That makes you an idiot.
DREMPT, and ClintR
Go hang with some like minded buddies
https://knightconnect.campuslabs.com/engage/organization/flatearthers
As Bindidon and Norman agree, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Once you are up to speed with them, the debate can continue.
Bindidon and Norman do NOT agree with DREMT and ClintR. DREMT has mistaken them for bill and Gordon.
#2
As Bindidon and Norman agree, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Once you are up to speed with them, the debate can continue.
As ClintR, Gordon, and bill minions agree with DREMT, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and wrongly per Madhavi, not on its own axis.
It’s a very confused 4 myrmidons team.
#3
As Bindidon and Norman agree, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Once you are up to speed with them, the debate can continue.
There was not any intelligent challenges to the “Tidal Locking” debunk. bob and Ball4 didn’t like my paraphrasing of their comments:
1) The moon is not an orange. Ball4
2) NASA faked the video. bob
3) Indoctrination supersedes reality. Snape
4) Earth and Moon are too big to obey laws of physics. bob
5) Confusing “weight” with “mass”. Nate
6) Laws of physics change with time. Ball4
7) Science from Galileo and NASA unacceptable. SkepticGoneWild
I offered to change the wording if they could restate their denial of reality in only a few words. They have so far declined. Maybe they realized how stupid they appeared.
Worth noting is the lack of attendance by about half of the Deniers. Are they actually learning something?
Sorry ClintR,
You haven’t debunked anything, the Moon is still tidally locked.
You have been telling porky pies!
Galileo and NASA astronauts debunked “tidal locking”.
I just report reality. You reject reality.
I’m content with your being an idiot.
Says the clown who can’t even understand and solve the tangential velocity equation.
It’s obvious you never set foot in a physics classroom. Oh wait. You have when you mop the floors each week.
Yup, I report reality. bob rejects reality. And you invent your own “reality”.
That’s why you’re both idiots.
ClintR
I had to solve the v=rw equation for you, you maggot. Your one brain cell gets overworked.
https://pixfeeds.com/images/41/608495/1280-increasing-tangential-velocity.png
In the above illustration, let’s assume there is a tennis ball on a string with Point A being on the near side, and Point B being on the far side. Vtb greater than Vta. Wow! What a concept!!! Get some middle schooler to explain this to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-558177
Gordon Robertson says:
November 20, 2020 at 7:10 PM
Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA re Bob’s link.
Hi…would you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis. It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth while rotating on its axis. You are likely confusing a change in pointing direction of the near face during the orbit as local rotation but it is actually due to curvilinear translation.
Presuming a circular orbit, draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. Now draw tangential lines to the orbital path at the near face and far face. Circles representing those tangent lines are always concentric, make rotation impossible. If you go farther and draw tangential lines at each point where the radial line intercepts the Moon, every tangential line representing each point defines concentric circles. Ergo, all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles and no local rotation is possible. The motion is curvilinear translation, which explain why the near face, or any face, is always pointing in different directions.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
So, any response from NASA yet?
As I have said before, the through-line with the non-spinners is that they do not have the knowledge or intelligence to deal with a complex real world. They are inventors of infantile fanfiction whereby for everything to make sense it has to be stripped of nuance, so it conforms to their head-in-the-sand ethos.
Flat-earthers and non-spinners use the exact same arguments, even the same language, leading one to surmise they are one and the same.
https://tinyurl.com/tinfoil-Tuesday-flat-earthers
More kiddie videos from Snape.
Carbon 500
A few ‘meter’s above, you wrote:
” Despite comprehensive records such as this, the British government is seeking to ban the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars in about ten years, replace domestic gas boilers with heat pumps and more besides; yet all we see is weather variations over the years. ”
*
During years and years, commenters regularly published, at Watts’ WUWT climate blog, charts presenting the Central England Temperature as a valuable hint on worldwide climate stability.
My experience is rather that CET isn’t even close to fairly represent UK as a whole, let alone would it be useful to do the job outside of it.
You just need to compare, on the basis of e.g. the GHCN daily data set, the UK with Germany and Norway to be convinced:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1idy3GCVW9Zc1Ke8MWq6ruU9bGkYrsvD4/view
The trends for 1900-2019, in C / decade (I spare us the CIs)
– UK: 0.09
– GM: 0.35
– NO: 0.33
For 1979-2019
– UK: 0.22
– GM: 0.39
– NO: 0.49
For 2000-2019
– UK: – 0.11
– GM: 0.29
– NO: 0.29
What could we compare here in a useful manner? All we see is that UK is a stable, somewhat cool country, and that it hardly could be a valuable benchmark for the rest.
If we want to understand why many people get so serious about climate change, so IMHO, even if we don’t share their view, we should at least have a look similar to theirs, and that means rather to take a more global approach than to stay on a country by country comparison.
*
Another typical example of the discrepancy between ‘local’ and ‘global’ is sea level analysis.
Again at WUWT, a Swedish commenter expressed doubt about sea level rise, by showing the data of a Swedish tide gauge.
But a comparison based on successively zooming out of a corner dominated by glacial isostatic rebound shows us that local data can be very misleading:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ulz1gkkkAD4S5Y_sHIufqLeuXZm0HmO/view
J.-P. D.
Hi Bindidon,
Thank you for your comments,links and interesting observations. My post followed on from an earlier on – it seems so long ago! It was on Nov 21 at 4:20 am, and here’s what I said:
Is there any chance that we might, just might, return to a discussion of climate matters?
Has the world’s climate for example changed anywhere in any significant way so as be a danger to human survival?
Has anyone got any links to reputable studies of climate on a country by country basis?
Lurid media tales and speculation as ever abound – rising sea levels, a blazing planet, the climate emergency, you name it, but where are the objective and unbiased studies which tell us the true state of affairs?
If there really are climate changes, what precisely are they, and, again, are they in any way a danger?
‘Climate change’ is a term bandied about freely these days, but for those posting on this website, I ask: has the climate or have the weather patterns where you live changed in a noticeable, measurable way to the detriment of people living where you do? Do you have data or informed comment from meteorological studies to back up your comments?
Back to the present. You note that ‘All we see is that UK is a stable, somewhat cool country, and that it hardly could be a valuable benchmark for the rest.’ My point exactly – and even in the UK, regional weather patterns differ, of course they do. Look at the other data on the Met Office link I supplied – rainfall, sunshine, as well as temperature. These are monthly observations in various parts of the UK over a century.
Where is the evidence in these graphs of dangerous climate change taking place? – and if it’s not happening in the UK it’s not global, is it? Yet, as I commented, the UK government has decided to impose draconian future changes in the way we obtain and use our energy in order to ‘save the planet’ – it makes no sense whatsoever in my view.
snape…”No it is not irrelevant on a rigid body. It is calculable. The far edge of the ball moves on a concentric circle larger than the near side edge”.
Once again, the particle velocity is irrelevant in a rigid body. With a rigid body rotating/orbiting about an external axis, it’s angular velocity is determined by the angular velocity of a radial line from the axis through the body.
On the Earth, someone on the Equator has an angular velocity close to 1000 mph. A person standing a mile from the North Pole, on a circle around the Pole with a radius of 1 mile (cicumference = 6.28 miles), has an angular velocity of 0.26 mph. Those velocities are the particle velocities to which you have referred on the Moon.
What possible effect does that have on the scientific fact that every point on the Earth takes 24 hours to complete one rotation?
In other words, if you draw a N-S axis through the Earth from pole to pole and draw radial lines from that axis to any point on the Greenwich meridian, each radial line is rotating at EXACTLY the same angular velocity. So, the person on the Equator and the person a mile from the NP, attached to one of those radial lines, are moving at exactly the same angular velocity as the rigid body.
You are fooling yourself into thinking the speed of any one particle has anything to do with the properties of a rigid body. The particles are not free to move and their properties are constrained to those of the rigid body. You can analyze individual particles all you want, it won’t make a shred of difference. The rigid rotating body determines the particle velocity, not the other way around.
You are missing the point of rigid body analysis. With rotation, the angular velocity of a rigid body is as I have described for radial lines. For the Moon, its angular velocity is that of a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre and the velocity of each particle is irrelevant.
It’s the same for the Earth. It does not matter that a person on the Equator moves at nearly 1000 mph and a person neat the NP moves at 0.26 mph, both take 24 hours to complete one rotation. On the Moon, a person on the near side and a person on the far side would take the same time to complete an orbit.
Gordon shrieks:
“On the Moon, a person on the near side and a person on the far side would take the same time to complete an orbit.”
I never said any different. My POINT was the person on the far side is traveling on a circular path that is LONGER than the person on the near side, so their velocities are different. The velocity of the far side of the moon is greater than the near side. And ClintR and DREMT do not agree. And apparently this confuses you as well.
No SGW, you are trying to create a diversion because your ship has sunk.
You’re so tangled up in your nonsense you don’t realize you admitted Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. As the far side always remains the far side, Moon is only orbiting, NOT rotating about its axis.
ClintR stated:
“The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass”
That is completely WRONG. Stupidly wrong. Hilariously wrong.
As Bindidon and Norman agree, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Once you are up to speed with them, the debate can continue.
Wrong Team members again DREMT, DREMT really means bill and Gordon.
#2
As Bindidon and Norman agree, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Once you are up to speed with them, the debate can continue.
Actually, bill and Gordon. DREMT can’t even keep the commenters straight let alone basic science.
#3
As Bindidon and Norman agree, the ball on a string is solely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Once you are up to speed with them, the debate can continue.
Gordon snorts:
“On the Earth, someone on the Equator has an angular velocity close to 1000 mph.”
WRONG! Angular velocity is a measurement of the rate of change of angular position of an object over a period of time. It is measured in radians/second.
No wonder you are so confused. You apparently forgot everything you learned in school.
Does anyone know whom Fordone Gordon is addressing in that word salad of a comment?
It doesn’t matter because everything he said is just more of his usual unfathomable pinheadery. Behold this piece of masterful BS… “the person on the Equator and the person a mile from the NP, attached to one of those radial lines, are moving at exactly the same angular velocity as the rigid body.”
Fordone Gordon does not understand why it is better to launch rockets from a latitude closer to the equator than from one closer to a pole. Here is a hint: about 500 mph higher angular velocity that the booster rockets don’t have to supply, and of course conservation of momentum is the rest of the story.
I’m a bit tired today though here it’s just a bit over 1 AM.
To have been reading a 133-page, 270-year-old document for days, which was written and typeset in the old German language: that is really exhausting, especially if it is a “treatise on the revolution of the moon around its axis”. Duh. Heresy!
*
Here is some funny food for the spinners and nonspinners (sorry, but… I am equally bored of both groups):
https://www.space.com/moon-far-side-fifth-night-for-china-chang-e-4.html
My question: why does Chang’e-4 need to shut down every two weeks?
Who doesn’t answer correctly has to pay 100 US$ to commenter Eben.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
JD, after months of watching the Moon discussion, you still haven’t learned a thing!
You obviously know nothing about Moon’s motion. You don’t understand what causes the lunar day.
You excel at being an idiot.
Because it’s spinning on sun’s axis ?
Why don’t you go and study up Ptolemy cosmology, that should keep you away for a while.
Eben, you make about as mich sense as Snape — which is none.
I decided to join your word salad contest , since you cant make this place any worse at this point anyway
It’s trolls like you that want to pervert reality and bring in the bad. But, that way people get to learn how pathetic your type really is.
So we turn your “bad” into a “good”.
Some people seem confused because the part of the Moon closest to the Earth seemingly has a lower velocity than that furthest away. Not at all. The Moon is falling at a constant speed – a bit over 1 mm/sec. All of it. There is no supernatural force pushing one part of the Moon a little bit harder, in the direction of its elliptical orbit. No torque to spin it.
Newtons Laws explain the Moons motion.
The Earth appears close to stationary when viewed from the Moon. Traces out a small ellipse, due to orbital inclination and Moons elliptical orbit. No rotation of Moon. No Earthrise or Earthset.
Sorry Swenson,
Those slight changes in the position of the Earth as viewed from the Moon are larger than the apparent diameter of the Earth as viewed from the Moon, so there are places on the Moon where the Earth does rise and set.
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question58.html#:~:text=That%20is%20not%20to%20say,the%20Earth%20does%20not%20change.&text=Also%2C%20because%20the%20orbit%20of,as%20seen%20from%20the%20surface.
bob,
As I said, close to stationary. Obviously, close to the Moon poles, the Earth dips below the horizon.
You dont need to apologise to me for being stupid.
Even your link states * Generally, the Earth will not “move across the sky”; it pretty much “stays put” in one location. *
Maybe you should try for information which contradicts me. You obviously cant comprehend what you read.
Swenson,
I did contradict you.
” No Earthrise or Earthset.”
This is what my source said
“Also, because the orbit of the Moon is tilted about 5 degrees with respect to the Earth’s equator, from the Moon there will be locations where the Earth will slowly rise and set during the lunar month as seen from the surface.”
Swenson is another v=rw denier. Wow! Truly amazing. Here is an illustration to help your confusion:
https://pixfeeds.com/images/41/608495/1280-increasing-tangential-velocity.png
Yeah, at the rate they are going, it’ll be no time before they are denying the advanced mathematics of the one and only Robert Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0ZRSbmCRM
Gordon
The motion of the moon depends on the frame of reference, with each just as valid as another. Youve accurately described its motion WRT Earth.
And for the record,
Im not Tyson. Ramona or Nurse Ratchet
S,
And in precisely no frames of reference does the Moon revolve about its internal axis.
As to the other, why would you say anything else?
Swenson wrote:
Slight editing problem above, should have been:
Swenson wrote:
And in precisely no frames of reference does the Moon revolve about its internal axis.
E. Swanson, it appears you are as incompetent at making comments as you are with orbital motion.
My editing skills suffer because I tend to be in a hurry. You, however, suffer from a complete inability to admit to reality. The Moon rotates once an orbit, as proven by the cycle of phases of it’s illumination by the Sun.
The “lunar day” is caused by Moon always keeping the same side toward Earth, you idiot.
The lunar day is caused by Moon always keeping the same side toward Earth, rotating once on its own axis per earth orbit.
Moon is orbiting, but NOT rotating about its axis.
Only idiots confuse the two motions.
Moon is orbiting an external axis, while rotating about its internal axis causing the day/night cycle.
Only idiots confuse the two axes.
Moon does not rotate about an “internal axis”.
Only idiots believe it does.
The non-spinners’ unfathomable pinheadery has produced some fine entertainment, worthy of their clown show.
So far we have seen:
https://tinyurl.com/did-not-debunk-tidal-locking
and
https://tinyurl.com/did-not-debunk-NASA
More recently it has been fun watching them trip over their own two(?) feet as they struggle to define angular velocity or inertial frames.
Seeing them fail the 5th grade level experiment was a gem of course.
Good times.
I love sentences like
” Newton’s Laws explain the Moon’s motion. … No rotation of Moon. ”
No one has ever pretended that Newton’s laws explain anything other than orbit: his laws are refinements of Kepler’s laws, through the introduction of gravity. No rotation of anything explained.
This means that, by strictly restricting the view to Newton’s laws, Earth wouldn’t rotate about its axis, nor would all other planets, let alone would the Sun.
Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
JD, what you don’t understand is that Newton explained how gravity produces orbital motion. In purely orbital motion, no axial rotation, one side of the orbiting body always faces the center of orbit.
Once you understand orbtial motion, you realize that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. It’s the same motion as a ball on a string.
You have a lot to learn and understand.
For the one stubbornest, most ignorant of all Pseudoskeptics, I repeat:
” This means that, by strictly restricting the view to Newton’s laws, Earth wouldn’t rotate about its axis, nor would all other planets, let alone would the Sun. ”
J.-P. D.
You are still confused, JD.
Newton’s Laws are NOT “strictly restricting” Earth from rotating about its axis. That’s just your confused, uneducated nonsense.
Newton explained orbital motion, as observed with Moon, and the ball on a string. An orbiting body can also rotate about its axis, as does Earth. But, then all sides are viewed from the center of orbit.
Do you have any more desperate attempts to pervert reality?
Pizzagate should have cleared things up a long time ago:
https://postimg.cc/9DdwrXvR
For the slow learners:
The center of the little square is also the center of the olive, and the olive is clearly rotating around this internal point (axis of rotation).
Of course, both the olive and little square are orbiting the center of the pizza.
Yes, I think that gif and your description of it absolutely makes the Spinners confusion crystal clear. The pizza is rotating. The olive is therefore rotating about the center of the pizza, and not on its own axis…same as all the other parts of the pizza. But when you mentally take the olive and put it in that little box, removing it from the context of its orbit…your mind tricks you into believing it is rotating on its own axis. That is the way the vast majority of you see it, even now.
Only Bindidon and Norman see through the illusion, on the Spinner side. So far.
DREMT
” Only Bindidon and Norman see through the illusion, on the Spinner side. ”
Stop manipulating, DREMT. I have explained numerous times that I don’t belong to the Spinners.
Both sides, Spinners and Nonspinners, behave on this blog IMHO equally ridiculous, unscientific, superficial, and above all: BORING.
I stay on real scientific work, as done by Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and many many others until the present time.
All people woefully discredited and denigrated by the Nonspinners, especially Robertson and ClintR, two persons lacking any valuable scientific education, knowledge and experience, but cowardly insult, behind their pseudonym, scientific persons and all the people presenting their work.
J.-P. D.
JD, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. But some idiots believe the perverted science that comes from “Neo-NASA”.
You are unable to do anything except complain about how stupid you are.
You agree that the olive, wooden horse or ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. If you are not going to chip in and help with the discussion then I will do it on your behalf.
DREMT
The fact that for me too, a wooden horse doen’t rotate on its axis when it was fixed on the carrousel below it: that does NOT CHANGE any thing to the much more important fact that all your discussions concerning coins, MGRs, horses, balls-on-a-string and stupid öpseudoscience a la curvilinear translations are in my opinion completely MEANINGLESS.
Thus, for the last time: STOP doing anything on my behalf.
J.-P. D.
No, I think I’ll continue to point out that you agree with us on that front. It’s kind of important, even if you don’t realize that yet.
DREMT will continue to erroneously point out that Bindidon agrees with DREMT on that front.
“The fact that for me too, a wooden horse doen’t rotate on its axis when it was fixed on the carrousel below it”
“Fixed” thus Bindidon’s carousel is not rotating so the horse is not rotating on its own axis either, nice swing DREMT but you strike out again.
#2
“The fact that for me too, a wooden horse doen’t rotate on its axis when it was fixed on the carrousel below it”
I stand with Cassini and Bindidon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws#:~:text=Cassini's%20laws%20provide%20a%20compact,treat%20other%20satellites%20and%20planets.
bobdroege
Thank you very much for respecting Domenico Cassini, woefully discredited by ignorants on this blog as an ‘astrologer’ though he was much more a great astronomer.
But Tobias Mayer did, some decades later, a much more consistent and accurate work, through a micrometer-based observation of Moon spots, and a deep analysis of their apparent movements:
https://tinyurl.com/y22enjxs
I know it’s completely useless, but when I’m done with this strenuous reading, I’ll post a summary in English of this great treatise, in which Mayer shows an impressive blend of astronomy, math and … technical skill.
I don’t know why everywhere all people think Mayer worked on libration. This word appears exactly once in his treatise:
https://tinyurl.com/y43kd763
His goal was the inverse, namely to show that apparent movements on Moon’s surface are due to Moon’s rotation about its interior axis.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Thanks Bindidon,
Other notable astrologers include Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei.
I forgot to translate the paragraph in Mayer’s treatise containing the said word:
” Domenico Cassini finally got on the right track. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then was called the libration of the Moon, by the rotation of the Moon about its axis; and the idea was providential. “
Yes indeed Bindidon the moon rotates around it’s axis, the COG of earth!
synonyms for axis
base, capital, center, central, core, cynosure, epicenter, eye, focus, ground zero, heart, hub, locus, mecca, navel, nerve center, nexus, nucleus, omphalos, pivot, seat
snapeskeptic…
The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass
That is completely WRONG. Stupidly wrong. Hilariously wrong”.
****
You fail to understand that the ‘speed’ referenced above is the angular velocity of the attached string and that determines the angular velocity of the balls COG. The fact that the near face and far face are moving at different particle speeds has nothing to do with the discussion and is a result of the angular velocity imposed on the ball by the string.
If you have a rotating radial line on an x,y plane, with its axis at 0,0, and allow it to rotate, it’s angular velocity is the number of degrees, or radians, it covers in a certain time.
Draw two circles with radius 1 and radius 2, so the same radial line intercepts both cicles. Mark the intercepting points as C1 and C2 and allow them to move with the radial line. As the radial line rotates at a certain number of degrees/radians per second, the two points have the same angular velocity. They both cover the same number of degrees/radians in the same time.
However, the particle in the outer circle has to move faster at a LOCAL tangential velocity (not angular velocity). Tangential velocities are immaterial to a rigid body. If you now make the radial line a rigid body, the two points undergoing different tangential velocities are constrained to move at the angular velocity of the rigid radial body. All three cover the same number of degrees/radians it the same time.
You don’t see that land on the equator is moving faster than land at the higher (or lower) latitudes? Due to the (semi)spherical shape of the earth, land on the equator has to travel a greater distance than land at higher latitudes to complete one revolution in the same time interval.
https://cdn.britannica.com/04/64904-050-D2054D06/cutaway-drawing-latitude-place-longitude-sizes-angles.jpg
Snape, you’re on the wrong page, again.
Gordon is talking about orbital motion. You are talking about axial rotation.
Gordon belches:
“You fail to understand that the speed referenced above is the angular velocity of the attached string and that determines the angular velocity of the balls COG.”
WRONG!!! Let me give ClintRs complete quote:
The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed.
ClintR makes a distinction. He refers to speed AND angular speed. The reference to speed is a linear quantity.
You dont know what you are talking about as usual. Angular velocity is a measurement of the rate of change of angular position of an object over a period of time. It is measured in radians/second.
Did you REALLY attend university?? You seem to be forgetting the basics.
Gordon,
ClintR is saying with the ball on the string and the moon, that the far side, c.o.g. and near side move at the same linear speed, not angular. Swenson and DREMT agree as well.
DREMT is not getting involved. DREMT is bored of getting dragged into everything.
SGW, to be more precise, it’s the incremental linear speeds I’m talking about. Both sides of Moon have the same incremental linear speeds = dS/dT. The speed directions are tangential to the orbit, and combine with the incremental effect of gravity to form the orbital motion.
Here’s an easy-to-understand graphic to explain orbital motion:
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Interactives/Circular-and-Satellite-Motion/Orbital-Motion/Orbital-Motion-Interactive
Set Eccentricity at 0.05 for Moon, and turn on “Vectors”.
Clint tries to walk back his comments. And as of yet, has never provided any calculations.
I gave you the science and the equations. Plug in the values and calculate to your heart’s content.
I bet you end up still an idiot.
Gordon belches:
“You fail to understand that the ‘speed’ referenced above is the angular velocity of the attached string and that determines the angular velocity of the balls COG.”
WRONG!!! Let me give ClintR’s complete quote:
“The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed.”
ClintR makes a distinction. He refers to “speed” AND “angular speed”. The reference to speed is a linear quantity.
You don’t know what you are talking about as usual. “Angular velocity” is a measurement of the rate of change of angular position of an object over a period of time. It is measured in radians/second.
Did you REALLY attend university?? You seem to be forgetting the basics.
skeptic…”Gordon snorts:
On the Earth, someone on the Equator has an angular velocity close to 1000 mph.
WRONG! Angular velocity is a measurement of the rate of change of angular position of an object over a period of time. It is measured in radians/second”.
***
Been through this before.
A radian is the length of the radius of a circle laid out on its circumference. If one radius length is laid out on a circle with its tail at the x-axis, it covers about 57.3 degrees. You can place 2pi = 6.28 radius lengths around the circumference of any circle.
The length of any circle’s circumference can be calculated, in inches, centimetres, metres, miles, kms, or any length you want, given the length of its radius (2pi.R). Therefore, the number of radians, degrees, and miles on a circumference of radius, R, are equivalent. It follows that the change in rate per unit time of each one of those equivalent angular measures is the same.
Proof:
Wrt to the Earth, we know it’s circumference at the Equator to be roughly 25,000 miles. When divided by 24 hours, that means a person on the Equator will move at a tangential velocity of approx. 25,000 mi/24 hours = 1041.7 mph.
What is the angular velocity of a radial line from the Earth’s centre to a point where the Greenwich meridian meets the Equator? We know that 360 degrees are covered in 24 hours. That’s 15 degrees/hour. How far will the radial line move in one hour? If one radial length is 57.3 degrees, when laid out on the 25,000 mile circumference of the Equator, the radial length is 360 degrees/25,000 miles = 57.3 degrees/x.
Solving for x = 25,000 mi(57.3 degrees)/360 degrees = 3979.17 mi. So we know that 1 radian on the Earth’s equator is 3979.17 miles in length.
Let’s do that for the 15 degrees the Earth turns in an hour.
360deg/25,000mi = 15 deg/x
x = 25,000mi(15 degrees)/360 deg = 1041.67 miles. Since it takes an hour for a point on the Equator to cover 15 degrees and 1041.7 miles, that proves the angular velocity of the Earth is 15 degrees per hour and 1041.7 miles per hour.
Want it in radians? 57.3 degrees = 1 radian so 15 degrees = 15deg/57.3deg/rad = 0.26 radians. The Earth turns at 0.26 radians/hour.
15 degrees/hour = 0.26 radians/hour = 1041.7 miles/hour are all equivalent measures of angular velocity at a specific radius on a circle. All I have done is convert the angular radial rate of change to the linear rate of change on the circumference. Same thing, but in mph rather than (degrees/radians)/hour.
skeptic…you need to get it that radian measure is a length itself, not the number of degrees in an angle. One radian = the length of the radius of a circle and it applies only on the circumference. That tells you nothing about angular displacement unless you lay the radian out on the circumference of a circle of R = 1 radian, and convert it to degrees.
If a radial line is turning at 2pi radians/sec it means the point where it meets the circumference of a circle is covering the length of the circumference in 1 second, and 360 degrees. Therefore 2pi radians = 360 degrees which converts length on the circumference to degrees. In fact, 1 radian of length on the circumference = 57.3 degrees.
Even though angular velocity is the rate of change of an angle per unit time, on a circle of radius, R, the angular velocity can be converted to an equivalent linear measure on the circumference.
You have to be very careful, however, when applying this to a rigid body like the Moon orbiting the Earth. For one, there is no solid connection between the Earth and the Moon and, for another, the Moon is moving as an independent rigid body in a linear direction.
A radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon is turning at 6.28 radians per 27+ days. That means the Moon covers 6.28 Earth-Moon radii on the orbital path each 27+ days. That refers to the Moon’s COG and has nothing to do with the tangential velocities of the near and far faces.
And Mr. Creosote explodes!
Instead of admitting he made a mistake, Gordon goes on a writing rampage just digging himself deeper in a hole.
Let’s look at the quantity Miles/hour. Does miles per hour equate to radians/second????? The denominator is in units of time. So we can convert seconds to hours and cross off the time units. We are left with Miles equals Radians. Do miles equal radians? NO!! On a curve, you would have to multiply the angle in radian by the radius to get the answer in miles. You will not find ANY physics reference that states length = radians. Remember s=R times omega?
Gordon. You are just making yourself look like a complete and utter idiot.
snape…”Lets look at the quantity Miles/hour. Does miles per hour equate to radians/second????? ”
Yes…I just took several paragraphs to prove it. A radian is a measure along the circumference of a circle equivalent to the length of the radius of the circle. Miles can also be measure on a circumference equivalent to multiples of the length of a radian.
Radian measure converts the degrees in an angle to length along the circumference. Degrees/second measure the rate of change of the angle of a rotating radius of a circle whereas the radians/second measures the rate of change of a point on the circumference where the radius touches it.
Therefore, angular velocity, ON A CIRCLE, can be measured as the rate of change of the angle created between the radial line and the x-axis, OR the rate of change of a point representing the tip of the radial line on the circumference.
Gordon,
Show me how you can convert 1000 miles to radians. Show your work. You would have to multiply 1000 miles times a “radians per mile conversion” factor. There is NO such thing.
SGW, the conversion factor is “radius”. So if the radius were 1000 miles, then 1000 miles along the circumference would be 1 radian.
You know so little about the subject, you just throw crap against the wall hoping something sticks.
That’s wrong ClintR, radians are dimensionless, radians do not have SI units of length.
In my example, the distance along the circumference would convert to 1 “radian”. Just as you could say 1 radian = 57.3 degrees.
You and SGW are clueless. Your desperation to defend your false religion matches your incompetence. You have nothing, so you try to twist, distort, confuse, and pervert reality.
Degrees are not an SI base dimension either ClintR. Degrees in geometry are simply assigned an arbitrary 360 per complete circle. Radians are a dimensionless quantity derived from length/length calculation.
ClintR erroneously assigns radians the SI base unit of length.
Your failure to accept reality tells us you’re an idiot.
ClintR accepts the same reality radians are dimensionless in ClintR’s comment: Radians = (distance along circumference)/(radius)
DREMT
[But when you mentally take the olive and put it in that little box, removing it from the context of its orbityour mind tricks you into believing it is rotating on its own axis.]
First, the little box does not remove or prevent the olive from orbiting the center of the pizza. To suggest so is complete nonsense.
The little square follows the olive in its orbit, with the edges of the square always parallel to the edges of the screen in which you are viewing the animation. So, clearly the little square is not rotating WRT the screen.
Therefore, the little square has created a non-rotating frame of reference (if your screen is not rotating then the little square is not rotating), and within this frame, we see an olive rotating about an internal axis.
Any given point on the edge of the olive is continuously facing a different side of the little square, and at the same time, the center of the pizza only sees one side of the olive.
Rotation or non-rotation…. depending entirely on which of the two inertial frames you choose as a reference. Both are equally valid.
“First, the little box does not remove or prevent the olive from orbiting the center of the pizza. To suggest so is complete nonsense.”
That’s why I didn’t suggest so. You have not understood, and I do not have the patience for you. Just carry on being wrong, I no longer give a shit.
snape…”Gordon …The motion of the moon depends on the frame of reference, with each just as valid as another”
swannie…”Selecting a reference frame with the Moon-Sun vector as one coordinate and another perpendicular to the Ecliptic, the Moon clearly rotates as the Sun illuminates a slightly different area of the surface every day”.
****
You guys are tying yourselves in knots with your philosophical interpretations.
snape…the Moon does not depend on a frame of reference, the human mind depends on them. The Moon is a rigid body moving in a straight line at all times and being coaxed into an orbit by the constant tugging of Earth’s gravity. It is the human mind that insists on seeing the Moon’s motion for different perspectives.
swannie…the reason the Sun illuminates different aspects of the Moon is that the Moon is orbiting the Earth. As it does so, it reveals different portions of its surface to the Sun. We only see the Moon on Earth when we are between the Sun and the Moon. When the Moon is between us and the Sun we can’t see it. AT those times the Sun is illuminating the far side of the Moon which we never see either.
That should tell you right there that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. The near side always points at us and the far side always points away.
The reason the Sun illuminates different aspects of the Moon is that the Moon is orbiting an external axis around the Earth. As it does so, moon reveals different portions of its surface to the Sun once per orbit causing the day/night cycle.
That should tell you right there that the Moon does rotate on its own internal axis in addition to orbiting on an external axis.
Wrong Ball4. Moon’s orbit presents different sides to Sun, but the same side to Earth. That’s the same for all orbiting motion, where there is no axial rotation. It’s the same as the ball on a string.
Your failure to accept reality tells us you’re an idiot.
Per ClintR Moon’s orbit presents different sides to Sun hence moon is rotating different sides to the sun on moon’s own internal axis while orbiting the earth on external axis.
ClintR throws DREMT under the bus by agreeing with DREMT’s ref. sources claiming the moon is rotating on its own internal axis just as shown in Madhavi Fig. 2(b) for a rectangular plate and “same as the ball on a string”.
Your failure to accept reality tells us you’re an idiot.
ClintR accepts the same reality that Moon’s orbit presents different sides to Sun.
[You guys are tying yourselves in knots with your philosophical interpretations.]
Motion is relative, Gordon. A mathematical reality and nothing to do with philosophy.
Case in point: What is the moons velocity in MPH (as opposed to angular velocity)?
A rough estimate is fine. Far side, near side, center of mass – whichever you want.
Snape,
Gordon can’t do it. He thinks miles and radians are equivalent. His quote upthread:
“Lets look at the quantity Miles/hour. Does miles per hour equate to radians/second. Yes.”
So you are going to get a weird answer. Gordon believes there is a conversion factor that converts miles to radians.
skeptic…”So you are going to get a weird answer. Gordon believes there is a conversion factor that converts miles to radians”.
What I don’t understand is your utter lack of ability to comprehend what I have explained. You don’t offer a rebuttal on my explanation just an ad hom of my alleged ineptness.
Do you agree that a radian is the arc-length on a circle of radius R that equals R? If not, we can have no further discussion and you need to go learn some basic trigonometry.
What else could it be? There are 2pi = 6.28 radians on the circumference of a circle. Not inside the circle, not outside the circle, but on the circumference of the circle.
One radian on the circumference measures an arc length representing the angle between the radial line and the x-axis of 57.3 degrees.
If a radian is a measure on the circumference representing an arc-length of 57.3 degrees, then the same distance on the circumference can be represented in any units. A circle of radius 1 metre has a circumference of 6.28 metres. There are 6.28 radians covering the same 6.28 metres on the circumference. Can you not convert between the two?
Are any lights going on? Would you admit it if they did?
Gordon, radians are a derived SI quantity, the ratio of arc length to radius length thus the units cancel thus radians are dimensionless.
ball4…”radians are a derived SI quantity, the ratio of arc length to radius length thus the units cancel thus radians are dimensionless”.
They can have no dimensions if you prefer but you can assign the arc-length represented by a radian any dimension you want.
For a circle with radius R = 1 (any units), the circumference in radians is 6.28 radians. It’s also 6.28 metres. There is a one to one relationship in this case between metres and radians therefore the length of 1 radian is 1 metre, or 57.2 degrees, whatever tickles you.
“For a circle with radius R = 1 (any units), the circumference in radians is 6.28 radians. It’s also 6.28 metres.”
No. It’s not 6.28 radians in length even with R=1 meter Gordon. Properly, the length of the circumference of a 1 meter radius circle is about 6.28 meters. Their ratio is dimensionless as length cancels out.
This is about 6.28 meters arclength/1 meter radius = ~6.28 radians
It’s nonsense to be multiplying both sides by 1 meter radius to find:
6.28 meters arc length = 6.28 radians-meter radius
How many radians in 1000 miles Gordon? Please provide the conversion factor.
skeptic…” What is the moons velocity in MPH (as opposed to angular velocity)?”
You are playing with two different numbers. The Moon’s linear velocity is not relevant since we are interested in the angular velocity in the orbit, which is a resultant between the Moon’s linear velocity and the acceleration applied to it by Earth’s gravitational field.
All we need is the angular velocity of a radial line from the Earth’s centre to the Moon. We know that angular velocity to be about 27+ days per orbit, or 27+ days/360 degrees or 27+days per 6.28 radians.
If you want to work the orbital velocity out as an angular velocity, presume a circular orbit, find the length of the radial line from Earth’s centre to Moon’s centre, and lay it out on the Moon’s orbital path. Remember, values on the Net are likely for a slightly elliptical orbit and may not agree exactly.
That will be one radian. There are 6.28 of those radians in one orbit. Divide that by the 27+ days to get radians per day.
If you want to convert that to mph or kph, get the conversion factor of one radian to the number of miles/kms it represents on the lunar orbit and go from there.
Don’t have time now, maybe I’ll work it out later.
I really just wanted to demonstrate to Gordon that the concept of relative motion is very real, and not just a philosophical concept.
For example, consider a chair inside a house located near Earths equator. How fast is the chair moving?
The chair is revolving around Earths center of mass at about 1000 mph.
The chair is revolving around the sun at about 67,000 mph
The chair is revolving around the center of the Milky Way at approximately 514,495 MPH
But relative to the other objects in the room, the chair is not moving at all.
So, which is the true velocity? The answer of course is all are equally true.
******
Gordon is correct about radians. The length of one radian equals the length of the radius, so radians/second are easily converted to distance/second.
“Gordon is correct about radians. The length of one radian equals the length of the radius, so radians/second are easily converted to distance/second.”
LMAO. The denominator units cancel. So how many radians in 1000 miles, snape?
Snape snorted:
“Gordon is correct about radians. The length of one radian equals the length of the radius, so radians/second are easily converted to distance/second.”
The formula for arc length on a circle: S = r θ; where
S is the arc length
r is the radius
θ is the angle in radians subtended by the arc.
The above equation tells you right away that S does not equal θ. I don’t know why you guys are making this so hard.
The angle symbol did not display correctly in the above equation. The equation might be better displayed as:
S=r(theta); where theta is the angle in radians subtended by the arc.
For interested persons
Lunar Constants and Models Document
September 23, 2005
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/dat/lunar_cmd_2005_jpl_d32296.pdf
No one on Earth would be dumb enough to ignore this document – and those it refers to (especially the DE403/LE403 ephemeris file, of course) – when planning any Moon landing mission.
J.-P. D.
Addendum
The actual Moon ephemeris file is DE430/31, based on latest LLR data.
binny…”No one on Earth would be dumb enough to ignore this document”
You mean, anyone who butt kisses to authority. Anyone with half a brain would question their unproved assertion that the Moon rotates about its axis exactly once per orbit. It’s simply not possible with the admission that one face must always face the Earth.
Robertson
People like you, hunter and ClintR have no problem with insulting me.
I hate insulting others.
But there is here no way around: you behave here like a dumb ass.
Ignorants like you three were never, are not, and will never be involved in any engineering let alone scientific task.
Even today, not one of you all would ever be able, like did the German astronomer Tobias Mayer 270 years ago,
– to design and engineer an own micrometer for optimal measurement of finest details observed with your telescope;
– observe small spots on the Moon during two years;
– develop a long series of transformations of these observations, using trigonometry and algebra
and
– as a final result, calculate
— the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis wrt the ecliptic;
— Moon’s rotation period around this same axis;
— the selenocentric latitudes and longitudes of all spots observed on the Moon.
*
You are all reckless, respectless cowards who can’t do anything else than to discredit and denigrate the work of others on this blog, behind your pseudonyms and fake names.
J.-P. D.
JD, the reason you’re so vindictive and spiteful is that you reject reality. You have no respect for truth. So you get upset when your false beliefs are crushed.
You are your own worst enemy.
binny…I told you before, you take insults too seriously. Regard them as dark humour. Also, they can only affect you if you have an image. Images are imaginary, have no useful value, and you spend half your life trying to defend them.
Robertson
” It’s simply not possible with the admission that one face must always face the Earth. ”
You were, are and will always be an ignorant, dumb ass, who never did anything valuable in his whole life.
That, Robertson, is the reason why you can’t move above the level of simple thoughts, and therefore discredit the work of those who were / are able to succeed where you always failed.
J.-P. D.
@SGW
A chair at the equator would follow a circular path around Earths axis.
An arc segment on a circle, equal to the circles radius, is called a radian.
There are 2pi, or 6.283 radians in a circle.
Earths Radius = 3958.8 miles
It takes the chair 24 hours to travel the 6.283 radians = 0.2618 radians/hour
0.2618 radians/hour = 1,036 miles/hour
******
From Space.com,
[This produces a speed at the equator of about 1,037 mph (1,670 km/h).]
https://tinyurl.com/ycrfrsjj
So if 0.2618 radians/hour = 1036 miles/hour, then 0.2618 radians = 1036 miles. Or;
1 radian = 3957 miles.
So according to Snape, 1 radian equals 3957 miles. Why don’t you publish that in a physics journal? You won’t, because it’s total BS. I don’t need your lecture on how to calculate speed at the equator. That is simple physics. I’ve taken general physics, statics, and dynamics in university.
A radian is not a unit of length. There is no direct conversion of radians to length or vice versa. The fact that radians are dimensionless should give you a hint.
I am being technical and precise here. You had to use the radius of the earth to come up with your answer.
S = r times theta
The above formula tells you right away that S does not equal theta.
This whole discussion came about because ClintR made the following statement:
The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed.
The discussion was on both the ball on a string and the moon. My concern was the conflation of angular and linear measurements. That’s how the discussion turned to the radian/sec measurement.
I am being picky because Gordon keeps coming up with BS kinematic definitions.
There is no conversion factor from miles to radians, or radians to miles. Radians are a unit for measuring angles, PERIOD.
skeptic…”according to Snape, 1 radian equals 3957 miles”
Only on a circle with radius, R. R is the length of the radian fitted as an arc-length on a circumference. Obviously for 1 radian to equal 3957 miles, the circumference has to be at least 6.28 times that value.
skeptic…”How many radians in 1000 miles Gordon? Please provide the conversion factor”.
That’s like asking how many inches there are in a degree. You have to specify a radius and a circumference to work your question out.
Don’t worry, I am intimmate with this answer. Badly hungover during an astronomy exam (I could hear the hair growing out of my head) I went up to the prof to ask how many kilometres there are ins a parsec. He just smiled and shook his head.
Your question should be, how many radians in 1000 miles on a circle with radius 100 miles? It is pointless talking about radians unless you specify a circle or curved surface with radius, R. That’s because R = one radian on the circle.
Gordon,
I understand what you are saying. But a radian is not a linear unit technically. There is no equivalency. There is a relationship between the two, dependent on the radius, as you state.
ClintR said this:
“The ball on a string is the same as Moon. Near side and far side have the same speed as center of mass, and same angular speed.”
So ClintR thinks the near side, center of mass, and far side all have the same LINEAR speed. That’s how the discussion turned to angular speed measurements in radians per second. My point was that angular velocity is not a linear measurement, it measures change in the angular position per time.
SGW, for additional clarity:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-558177
skeptic….”But a radian is not a linear unit technically”.
I can agree with that, the radian was developed to make it easier to deal with angle in trigonometric functions like sines and cosines. However, having defined it as an arc-length with the length of the radius of a circle, there’s no reason why you cannot give that arc-length any dimension you want.
Once the arc length has been determined as one radian, you know the arc-length is 57.3 degrees and you know a full circle is 360 degrees. You can calculate the length of the circumference and use the ratio 57.3/360 to work out real linear lengths equivalent to the radian length.
Samples of conversion factors:
1 yard = 3 feet
5280 ft = 1 mile
So to find how many feet in 3 yards, you multiply 3 yards times 3 feet/1 yard. The yard units cancel and you get 9 feet.
But with radians, there is no conversion factor. One radian equals how many feet? Illogical. There is no answer.
Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
The following has a list of conversion factors:
https://www.its.caltech.edu/~culick/documents/Roschke.pdf
On page 8, it lists the radian. There is no conversion listed from radians to feet.
I am sorry you are so confused on this issue.
The question about how many radians in 1000 miles was a rhetorical question with no answer. That’s why I asked it. There is no conversion from miles to radians, because like I keep pointing out, a radian is not a linear measurement.
SGW, how long are you going to be confused about this simple issue. The “conversion factor” is the radius.
Radians = (distance along circumference)/(radius)
Radians = (distance along circumference)/(radius) = length/length so ClintR admits radians are properly SI dimensionless.
What I admit is that your failure to accept reality makes you an idiot.
ClintR accepts the same reality radians are dimensionless: Radians = (distance along circumference)/(radius)
ClintR,
No. The radius is not a conversion factor. For example, let’s convert “two miles” to feet. We know 1 mile = 5,280 feet. That is the conversion factor. So we multiply two miles times 5,280 feet/mile, and we get 10,560 feet. A conversion factor always equals “1” when divided by itself. Is there a conversion factor for radians to feet. No. How many feet does one radian equal? That is an illogical question, because radians are a angular measurement and feet are a linear measurement.
We can convert radians to degrees, because we know 360 degrees = 2 pi radians. That is the conversion factor. There is no conversion factor to convert radians to feet.
Read the following to educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
SGW believes 1000 ft along the circumference of a circle with radius 1000 ft cannot be expressed in “radians”.
Yup, he’s an idiot.
ClintR, SGW, and I all accept the same reality radians are dimensionless: Radians = (distance along circumference)/(radius)
Clint shrieks,
“SGW believes 1000 ft along the circumference of a circle with radius 1000 ft cannot be expressed in “radians”.”:
Of course it can. But you cannot convert radians to feet. There is no conversion factor. What does 1 radian equal in feet? No answer. Because radians never equals feet. You don’t get conversion factors, among a multitude of other subjects.
This will help you with your confusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
When you convert units, the type of unit does not change. If it is a linear unit, it remains a linear unit. Radians are unitless, so you cannot convert it to a linear unit.
Sorry for your confusion.
Gordon,
Our definitions were a bit off.
From Wiki: a unit of angle, equal to an angle at the center of a circle whose arc is equal in length to the radius.
So. a radian is the angle within the arc segment we described.
Equals 57.296 degrees.
A radian is also a dimensionless unit, which means for instance, it does not have a linear measurement in feet.
SGW
[So according to Snape, 1 radian equals 3957 miles. Why dont you publish that in a …. ]
No. This should help:
3958.8 miles = Earths radius
3958.8 miles along Earths equator represents 57.296 degrees
A 57.296 degree angle within a circle = 1 radian
****
Cmon. do you think I just got lucky with the calculation?
I completely understand your calculations. The point being there is no conversion of a radian to a linear measurement in general. Radians/second are used to denote angular velocity, not linear. My point all along, which flew right over your head.
Now if you can get Gordon to calculate the speed of the near and far side of the moon, I’ll be happy.
…and despite all this nonsense, a ball on a string is still not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. The ball is rotating about an external axis, or “orbiting”, and not rotating about its own center of mass.
A ball on a string is still rotating on its own internal axis once per rev., depending on reference frame. The ball is rotating about an external axis, or “orbiting”, and rotating about its own center of mass on its internal axis per the rectangle Madhavi Fig. 2(b). In fig. 2(a) the rectangle is not rotating on its own internal axis while orbinting the center external axis.
DREMT is still thoroughly confused over internal/external axes. DREMT just needs to understand Madhavi.
Ball4, if the ball on a string were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around the ball.
So, you continue to confuse, twist, distort, and pervert reality, as usual.
ClintR remains confused about axes & leaves out an important observation: if and only if the ball on a string were really rotating about its internal axis more or less than once per external axis rev., then the string would wrap around the ball.
The string tension forces the ball to rotate on its own internal axis once per external axis rev., and not less than, nor more than, once per external axis rev.
“So, you continue to confuse, twist, distort, and pervert reality, as usual.”
Yes, that is all it ever does.
Snape,
Read the following on conversion factors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
For example, we know 360 degrees =2 Pi radians. So we can convert radians to degrees. But there is no conversion factor for radians to feet. There is an equation that expresses the relationship between the arc length, radius and subtended angle. But that is not a conversion factor.
skeptic…how about this, right off the top of my head. I stand to be corrected and it.s not done to required engineering precision re units.
Radians/6.28 = arc-length/circumference
test1..
radius = 5 m
circumference = 2.pi.R = 31.4 m
radians = 1
1/6.28 = arc-length/31.4m
arc-length = 31.4m/6.28 = 5 metres
test2…
radius = 5m
C = 31.4 m
radians = 2
2/6.28 = arc-length/31.4 m
arc-length = 2(31.4m)/6.28 = 10 metres
test3…
R = 5m
C = 31.4 m
radians = 6.28
arc-len = 6.28(31.4m)/6.28 = 31.4 m
Gordon,
We are talking about two different things. I am talking conversion factors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
There is a conversion factor for converting radians to degrees, for we know 360 degrees = 2 pi radians. But there is no conversion factor for radians to feet.
The s = r theta equation is not a conversion factor. It’s just a relationship relating the three.
skeptic…”But there is no conversion factor for radians to feet”.
I just gave it to you in metres, here it is in feet:
radians/6.28 = arc-length (feet)/circumference(feet)
remember… one radian equivalent to radius (feet).
Circumference = 2.pi.R
You did not read the Wikipedia article on conversion factors. The article even gives and example of how to convert something using conversion factors. The example shows how to convert from 5 km/s to meters/s. We know 1 km = 1000 meters, That is the conversion factor. So you multiply 5 km/s times 1000 meters/1 km to obtain 5000 m/s. As it says: The unity bracket method of unit conversion[1] consists of a fraction in which the denominator is equal to the numerator, but they are in different units.” Your example simply does not even conform to this requirement. And when you convert the units, the type of units stay the same. If it is a length per time unit, the conversion will be in a length per time unit as well.
There is NO conversion factor for radians to any type of length. You simply do not understand what a conversion factor is. Read Wikipedia again.
Geez Gordon. This is not even simple physics. It’s simple math.
After a plunge during October, the Arctic sea ice climbs back to winter mode:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
In the Antarctic, all is well, sea ice keeps good over the 1981-2010 mean (last year, it was all the time below):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, It’s better to look at the data plotted annually. See graphs at this link, particularly the right most one on the first row and 2a.
E. Swanson
Sorry, no. I have that all: daily, monthly, yearly. Here is e.g. the monthly plot of SIDADS at colorado.edu for the Arctic since 1979, showing both extent and area till October this year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
The daily plot of successive years is imho interesting for the Arctic because you see much better the unusual shift of the yearly switch from summer to winter in 2019 and 2020.
J.-P. D.
@SGW
I take it all back – agree with you completely regarding radians.
I agreed completely with your earth calculation and the fact that 1 radian was the equivalent of 3958.8 miles. And that was based on the equation that gives the relationship between the radius, arc and and subtended angle.
But my point was as to the general sense of a conversion factor, and maybe I was not real clear on that? Because obviously you would understand what conversion factors are.
skeptic … a converter from radians/sec to metres/sec. Unfortunately it only works for integers and 6.28 does not work.
Play with the radius in integers.
https://lucidar.me/en/unit-converter/rad-per-second-to-meters-per-second/
Gordon,
They are confused on the link you provided. All they are doing is using the v=rw formula. That is not a conversion.
A conversion is like using the fact that 360 degrees = 2 pi radians, to convert radians to degrees.
There is no conversion from radians to a linear unit.
You are merely playing with semantics.
I am being precise. In engineering, there is no room for error. I am accurately defining what a conversion factor is. And what a radian is. And a radian is not a linear measurement.
If you don’t understand conversion factors, Read the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
https://www.its.caltech.edu/~culick/Roschke.pdf
The Caltech reference has every conversion factor you can think of, but nothing to convert radians to feet. Because there is no such animal.
I haven’t seen where this all started or what you were originally debating. Did the person you were correcting have a conceptual error that stemmed from this use of language, or were you just point-scoring because you had nothing useful to contribute?
With that attitude, figure it out for yourself.
SGW
[But my point was as to the general sense of a conversion factor, and maybe I was not real clear on that?]
Not your fault at all. I was just really, really thick. Is it possible that Gordon is contagious….. Gordovirus?
LMAO. I hope not.
A response from NASA. It is clearly apparent in this simulation that the same face is NOT pointing to the Earth throughout the orbit. I have advised them of that inconsistency and am awaiting a reply.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
ps. it can be seen that between about 4 o’clock and 10 o’clock that the near side changes places with the far side.
It is a nice animation , but there is no such thing as near side changes places in it , you are hallucinating
Eben
This guy certainly doesn’t hallucinate; his trick rather is to deliberately distort reality until it matches his egocentric narrative.
J.-P. D.
eben…”but there is no such thing as near side changes places in it , you are hallucinating”
I agree with you there, the animator has illuminated the lunar side facing the Sun, giving the appearance that the dark side and lit side are changing places.
Note that the solar illumination starts out shining from the ESE and moves to the SSE. It seems the Sun is now librating longitionally.
However, look at the small radial line drawn on the Moon and always pointing to the Earth. It should be extended to the the Earth since the animation makes it appear as if the radial line itself is rotating. It’s not. It’s turning around an axis at the Earth’s centre.
Since the near face, the side attached to the radial line, is always perpendicular to the radial line, it forms a tangent line to an inner circle. If you extend the radial line through the Moon so it intercepts the far side, then the far side is perpendicular to the radial line and forms a tangent line for the outer circle.
You now have the near face moving always parallel to the far face, meaning they can never change places as is required for angular rotation through 360 degrees.
Gordon shrieks:
“You now have the near face moving always parallel to the far face, meaning they can never change places as is required for angular rotation through 360 degrees!”
That is your own false interpretation. Prior to the moon’s current motion, it was rotating on it’s own axis at a higher rate. Let’s say it was rotating on its own axis at some point in time at the rate of 1.5 rotations per orbit. Now it has slowed to 1 rotation on it’s own axis per orbit. An object stops rotating on its own axis when it reaches 0 rotations per orbit, which would be what is known as curvilinear translation.
Your freak show of non-spinners have to redefine what an orbit is, redefine what an inertial reference frame is, redefine what translation is, just to name a few, in an pathetic attempt to prove your point.
Flesh Gordon just totally debunked himself as he realized the little line nicely proves visually the moon is spinning
binny…”This guy certainly doesnt hallucinate; his trick rather is to deliberately distort reality until it matches his egocentric narrative”.
You have gotten yourself so tied up in hatred that you cannot comment objectively. If you feel the need to vent your spleen, at least throw in some objective comments regarding the physics. When I call you an idiot, I explain why.
Robertson
Give up your permanent lies concerning me.
I have shown you dozens of times why and where you were wrong, but all the times you ‘forget’ what I wrote, and come back each time again with exactly the same unscientific nonsense – regardless what it was about: Moon’s spin, viruses, Einstein, Earth energy balance etc etc.
The last proof of your absolute ignorance you demonstrated as you tried to explain that Lagrange went wrong by using a three dimensional integral to compute Moon’s spheroid behavior.
You, Robertson, are such a zero knowledge dumb ass compared to people like Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace.
You’re REALLY the stupidest failure I’ve ever known.
J.-P. D.
Looks to me like the same face does remain pointing to the Earth throughout the orbit. In other words, it looks like a nice, clear simulation of the moon orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
DREMT
My LINUX computer has a 22″ monitor, and I can clearly see, when switching the image to full screen mode, the tiny variations of the distance between the biggest spots and the orbit line.
J.-P. D.
The moon in the simulation is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis. Same as in real life.
No.
Correct Bindidon, DREMT is proven wrong by ClintR & DREMT’s own ref.s that the moon rotates on its own internal axis since, as ClintR comments, the Moon’s external axis orbit presents different sides to Sun, but the same side to Earth just as shown in the NASA demonstration.
DREMT is living in the past, refuses to learn.
DREMT
I repeat:
” I can clearly see, when switching the image to full screen mode, the tiny variations of the distance between the biggest spots and the orbit line. ”
If the Moon wasn’t rotating about its own axis, then the distance between a spot and the orbit line would never vary.
Btw, you might stop using “Earth/moon barycenter”. Please use Earth’s center instead, as the barycenter of the two is inside Earth, and the difference is 1% of the distance between Earth and Moon, i.e. imperceptible for us.
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon, I will simplify it for you: the moon is rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis.
Gordon’s posted NASA video proves DREMT is wrong, as ClintR comments the moon presents different faces to the sun rotating on its own internal axis for day/night cycle as shown orbiting an external axis thru Earth.
DREMT is living in the past, DREMT refuses to learn.
OK DREMT
No need for any further discussion, as you refuse to understand or accept what I have described, and what really cannot be overlooked.
Sorry: this is simply stubborn.
J.-P. D.
Explain why what you have described proves axial rotation of the moon.
That’s easy DREMT, the moon, as Gordon shows, has day/night cycles thus is rotating on its own internal axis, as ClintR comments, presenting different faces to the sun while keeping same face to the Earth orbiting on an external axis.
DREMT is living in the past, DREMT refuses to learn.
Bindidon, explain why what you have described proves axial rotation of the moon.
Note to readers: I no longer respond to Ball4.
Bindidon is correct: “No need for any further discussion.” with DREMT.
Because DREMT is living in the past, DREMT refuses to learn.
Since Ball4 misrepresents me, again, I need to state that DREMT has it right. Bindidon and Ball4 have it wrong.
ClintR 10:47am: “Moon’s orbit presents different sides to Sun”, just as shown in Gordon’s posted video, faces rotating on Moon’s own internal axis for a day/night sun cycle during an orbit of an external axis through Earth.
ClintR can be as wrong as DREMT, ClintR can’t even keep his comments consistent.
DREMT
Is it so difficult?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-559190
When the Moon moves along its orbit line, the distance between dark spots on it and the orbit line becomes smaller, the spots turn CCW.
If the Moon didn’t rotate about its axis, this distance would not change.
Think what you want, DREMT, and stop asking me: you will discard my answers anyway.
J.-P. D.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to explain…the spots turn CCW because the moon is orbiting, and thus changing its orientation. The same face is always pointed towards the center of the orbit. That is what orbital motion (without axial rotation) involves.
DREMT
” … the spots turn CCW because the moon is orbiting, and thus changing its orientation. ”
I don’t mean the spots turning CCW around Earth!
I mean these spots turning CCW within the Moon, what I can see because the distance between one of the spots and the orbit line slightly decreases (or, at another places, conversely increases) while Moon orbits.
If the Moon were not rotating in the simulation, all the spot orbit lines would be concentric with the white orbit line: the distance between the spots and the white orbit line would not change.
Maybe your display lacks the necessary size and resolution? I have 22″, and 1680 x 1050 true color pixels, and that’s well just a bit above the minimum needed to see the effect.
*
Moreover, this simulation is far away from what we need: we need one taking all Earth and Moon orbiting and spin movements about their axes into account, axe inclinations wrt the ecliptic included.
When I have time to do, I’ll download a simulation software freely provided by the German Aviation and Space Society, which hopefully will run on my LINUX guy.
The people there told me it contains all I need. Wait and see.
J.-P. D.
OK, so why do you believe this proves axial rotation of the moon?
DREMT
As you can see in your own answer: it doesn’t matter what I write.
You ALWAYS will reply the same, regardless the evidence:
” OK, so why do you believe this proves axial rotation of the moon? ”
You DO NOT WANT to see what I mean.
J.-P. D.
Sorry, I am trying really hard to follow your line of reasoning, but there doesn’t seem to be one!
You are saying if all the markings on the moon were moving in perfect concentric circles/ellipses, you would accept that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, but merely rotating about the Earth. But because you believe you can see some minute deviation from the markings moving in concentric circles, you throw out the idea altogether, and suddenly this means the moon is rotating on its own axis! Not just “the moon is rotating about the Earth, but with occasional wobbles so that the markings are not moving quite perfectly in concentric circles/ellipses the whole time”…it is now fully, 100% “rotating on its own axis”, according to you.
I do not understand…and not because I’m trying to be difficult. You just do not make any sense.
Nah… just kidding, Gordon
The thing I was confused about was all me, and nothing to do with you or SGW. Not even worth explaining.
Happy Thanksgiving
Some here are really dense when looking at
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Why do such people not have balls enough to ask, if they don’t trust NASA, in Russia, in China and India, the people responsible for Lunar operations?
Because they already know which answer they would immediately obtain… and that it does not fit at all to their narrative!
J.-P. D.
Cassini’s laws on the motion of the Moon published in 1643:
1)The spin period is identical to the orbital period.
2)The spin axis maintains a constant inclination to the ecliptic plane.
3)The spin axis, orbit normal, and ecliptic normal remain coplanar.
The third of these implies that while the Moon’s orbit precesses, its spin axis precesses at the same rate. The spin axis precession is caused by the small torque exerted by the Earth on the Moon’s figure.
Science wins due to a consilience of evidence: https://tinyurl.com/Lunar-Reconnaissance-Orbiter
The through-line with the non-spinners is that they do not have the knowledge or intelligence to deal with a complex real world. They are inventors of infantile fanfiction whereby for everything to make sense it has to be stripped of nuance, so it conforms to their head-in-the-sand ethos. Horses on a mgr, ball on a string, two coins, are their evidence?
Yes, because it is just a simple perception shift that you are still failing to grasp.
Snape, you can’t get anything right.
The Cassini nonsense came out in 1493, NOT 1453.
Cassini “laws” are NOT laws. They are easily debunked by anyone that understands orbital motion. Cassini was an amateur. He was trying to imitate Newton, who had published his REAL Laws of Motion a few years earlier.
Cassini’s interesting contribution was the “Cassini Identity”, so he wasn’t all bad.
F_{n}^{2} – F_{n+1}F_{n-1}=(-1)^{n-1}, where “F” is any Fibonacci number.
As an example, use Fibonacci number “8”
8^2 – (13)(5) = (-1)^5
64 – 65 = -1
Make that “….1693, NOT 1643”
At least the complex equation made it!
Essentially the non-spinners are a traveling freak show, only less entertaining.
SGW, why can you tell the truth? Like many of the others, you’re always misrepresenting, twisting, distorting, reality.
Are you such a loser you can’t stand reality?
The non-spinners’ unfathomable pinheadery has produced some fine entertainment, worthy of their clown show.
So far, no results on their proposed debunks:
https://tinyurl.com/did-not-debunk-tidal-locking
and
https://tinyurl.com/did-not-debunk-NASA
While nothing is expected on Tonto the clown’s item (because… he’s a clown), Fordon Gordon’s debunk is highly anticipated. Although he seems to have been confused by a NASA animation in which he cannot tell the near-side from the far-side of the Moon. Here is a hint, the near-side of the Moon exhibits dark basaltic maria.
https://tinyurl.com/learning-the-moon
Snape, for some reason you did not include this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
It’s almost as if you’re avoiding reality….
Tonto, even an imbecile such as yourself would surely see a difference between the names Snape and Tyson. Unless you subconsciously mean to label me Snopes because I exposed your pinheadery. Yeah, that’s it. Now dance bisch!
Snape, it’s not my fault you are obsessed with changing your screen name, constantly.
Each of you idiots have your own characteristic peccadillos.
You change your name.
Ball4 misrepresents others.
Norman insults and makes up “science”.
bobdroege tries to intimidate with juvenile profanity.
Bindidon tries to misrepresent Newton.
SGW dwells on “red herrings”, like “converting units”.
Swanson tries to pretend he “built satellites”
The list goes on and on, and on and on.
Poor ClintR lashes out because he’s embarrassed he can’t calculate the velocity of the near and far side of the moon.
Clint is just frustrated he’s on the losing end. Why are these clowns here? They rail against NASA and science to no avail. Why don’t they publish a scientific paper? Well, they have the science backwards and no scientific organization would take them seriously. So they are relegated to howling at the moon on Spencer’s site. They really belong in a circus freak show.
A science “paper” that correctly debunked “Moon axial rotation” and “tidal locking” would not be accepted by those that control the institutions. It’s the same problem that paople like Spencer and Christy face. Real science is heavily censored.
https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1490622315ra/22327918.gif
That’s quite a list of grievances!
Here, https://i.imgflip.com/e94sv.jpg, maybe this will help.
The most entertaining Spinner moment was definitely when they argued that everything on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating. Hilarious stuff.
ClintR,
I noticed the other Snape (the one who likes to change his name) is on your list, but not me. Glad to have earned your trust and respect.
Regards, SnapeR
Whenever the trolling idiots get out of hand, it’s necessary to conduct another “Idiot Test”, to bring them back in line.
Idiot Test:
When swinging a ball on a string around your head, is the ball rotating about its axis?
a) Yes
b) No
Snape, Bindidon, Ball4, and SGW cannot answer the simple question correctly, because they’re idiots.
According to ClintR at 10:47 am, the correct outdoor clear daytime answer is a) ball’s orbit presents different sides to Sun.
Moon non-spinner convention with a graph of their collective IQ:
https://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/head-in-sand.jpg
Actually, Bindidon should answer the question with a “no” given what he said about the wooden horse:
“the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel”
7:25pm: …which Bindidon called a DREMT fail.
#2
Actually, Bindidon should answer the question with a “no” given what he said about the wooden horse:
“the race horse fixed on the ground of the carrousel of course does NOT spin; it solely turns around the center of the carrousel”
snape…”Our definitions were a bit off.
From Wiki: a unit of angle, equal to an angle at the center of a circle whose arc is equal in length to the radius”.
******
I don’t trust definitions from wiki, they could be submitted by anyone. I am going on what I was taught in math classes.
Wiki is essentially saying the same thing I am saying but they go off on a tangent about the radian being dimensionless. They are contradicting themselves because once the radius is specified in metres you know the length of the radian in metres since it is the arc-length equal to the radius.
I have always regarded the radian to be an ambiguous measure. It infers degrees when it is actually a measure of an arc-length along a circle of radius R, which can be expressed in degrees, metres, feet, inches, centimetres, etc. Then again, no one said an angle had to be measured in degrees, when the arc-length does the job for a specific circle.
If you have an isosceles triangle, you can specify the base angles in degrees but it makes no sense to specify them in radians, even though that same 60 degree angle could be used in a circle and measured in radians. The radian measure requires a circle of radius R and it is a measure of arc-length on the circumference. Angle and arc-length are equivalent on a circle so it comes down to semantics.
In that case, you can regard the radian as being dimensionless or you can regard its equivalent length in any units. Heat and work are equivalents even though they do not share the same units. Heat is measured in calories and work in joules.
If you have 1 radian on a circle’s circumference equaling the length of 1 radius, and you know there are 6.28 radians in a circumference, you can express the radian as a fraction of the 6.28 radians. Knowing that fraction, you can apply it to any units of measure related to the radius length.
Therefore the fraction x radians/6.28 is equivalent to the ratio arc-length (any units)/circumference (same units). In the first case, the radian is simply expressed as a fraction of the number of radians in a circumference, which can apply to any circle of any radius. However, once you specify the radius in a particular unit, the radian has a specific measure in those units and can be declared equal to the ratio of arc-length/circumference in the same units.
Gordon moans:
“Heat and work are equivalents even though they do not share the same units. Heat is measured in calories and work in joules.”
Thanks for proving my point. There IS a conversion factor for converting calories to Joules, which is as follows:
1 calorie = 4.184 Joules
So you can convert from calories to Joules or Joules to calories using the unit bracket method.
Now. Is there a conversion factor for radians to length. No. Nowhere to be found.
Lets say the perimeter of a clock, from the 12 to the 6, measures 19 inches……
0.5 hours = 30 minutes = 1,800 seconds = 19 inches?
The first 3 values are different ways of expressing the very same thing, The last is something else entirely.
*****
Similar problem here:
1 radian = 57.296 degrees = 19 inches?
The minute hand of a clock sweeps through half a circle in 30 minutes. If that distance corresponds to 19 inches, then it should be:
π radians = 180 degrees = 19 inches.
ball4…”Thats easy DREMT, the moon, as Gordon shows, has day/night cycles thus is rotating on its own internal axis”
The day/night cycles are explained better by a non-rotating Moon.
So explain it Gordon, the only way is a rotating on its own axis moon. It could be the sun is orbiting the moon illuminating all sides in day night cycle.
ball4…”So explain it Gordon, the only way is a rotating on its own axis moon”.
I have already explained it umpteen times. Supposing you were facing north and spinning a ball on a string around your head.Someone is standing to the east of you shining a flashlight at your head, illuminating the ball. As the ball rotated, around your head, the light from the flashlight would illuminate different parts of the ball as it rotated AROUND YOUR HEAD.
We know the ball cannot rotate on its axis because it is constrained from moving with a local angular velocity by the string. If it did have such a local angular velocity, the ball would have to wrap itself up in the string. It does not, therefore it is not rotating about its axis.
It’s the same with the Moon. It rotates about the Earth’s centre as if it was attached to a string. In this case, we replace the string with a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon. We can do that because the Moon moves under its own momentum in a straight line at each instant and Earth’s gravity tugs on it like the string does with the ball.
Same scenario, the Earth is your head and you are facing North. The Sun is in the east and shining on your head. For now, we don’t care if your Earth/head is stationary or rotating, we are focused on the Sun’s light shining on the Moon from the East.
As the Moon passes between your head and the Moon, the East side of the Moon is illuminated. When the Moon is to the North, the side illuminated was formerly the south side of the Moon when it was in the East.
When the Moon is opposite the Earth, the Sun now shines on the opposite side of the Moon that was illuminated when it was in the East.
And, no, the Moon is not rotating on its axis. The reason the Sun can illuminate different faces of the Moon during it’s orbit has to do with the effect of gravity on the Moon’s linear momentum which forces it to face in different directions.
The Moon does not have to rotate on a local axis to do that any more than a car has to rotate on its COG while moving on a circular track. The only way the car could rotate around its COG would be to perform a 360 skid.
No Gordon, the light from the flashlight would illuminate different parts of the ball only as it rotated on its own internal axis once per rev. while orbiting on an external axis AROUND YOUR HEAD.
You still confuse axes as do the rest of the Team. Your explanation has failed for the umpteenth time.
ball4…”You still confuse axes as do the rest of the Team. Your explanation has failed for the umpteenth time”.
We are not confusing anything, we know the string is attached to the ball at a point on the ball that must rotate about the ball’s COG/axis in order for the ball to rotate in that way. The mystery is why you cannot see that and acknowledge it.
Then again, you still think heat is a measure of energy when the only energy to be measured is thermal energy, aka heat. According to you, heat is a measure of heat. I’m going with Clausius, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. We humans invented temperature to measure the effect that heat energy has on mercury in a vial. We set 0C at the freezing point of water and 100C at the boiling point. Voila…a means of measuring relative heat levels.
Now, if you could only find a way to measure the angular velocity of a ball about its axis when it has a string attached to it under tension. By isnpection, the non-spinners can see the obvious, that is has zero angular velocity about it’s local axis.
Yes Gordon, you see it correctly, the “ball that must rotate about the ball’s COG/axis.” to have day/night cycles.
Yes Gordon, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
Gordon is particularly lucid today.
Gordon,
The ball has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum. See the following (2:12-2:15):
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ball+on+a+string+in+space+experiment&&view=detail&mid=85637C07E93F9E4C441685637C07E93F9E4C4416&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dball%2Bon%2Ba%2Bstring%2Bin%2Bspace%2Bexperiment%26FORM%3DHDRSC3
When the string is released the orbital angular momentum becomes linear momentum, giving the ball the impetus to keep the ball moving in the tangent direction to the release point. The spin angular momentum also continues, keeping the ball spinning on its own axis.
The ball does not start spinning on its own axis upon release. It was already spinning on its own axis prior to release. (Newton’s first law of motion).
Sorry this confuses you.
“The moment the strings are broken and they are thrown off they will begin to rotate but, as pointed out before, this motion neither adds to or detracts from the energy stored. The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.” – Nikola Tesla
Yes DREMT, your Tesla clip agrees with SGW: “this motion neither adds to or detracts from the energy stored” meaning the object was rotating on its own axis before the string cut as there is no energy added when the object “will begin to rotate” independently on its own axis no longer forced by the string.
Almost forgot, here is the link that my Tesla quote came from:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
So that you can all see that he is not in agreement with SGW.
DREMT, searching demonstrates your Tesla clip is accurate from that ref. thus your clip accurately shows Tesla agrees with SGW.
“As will be seen, we arrive at precisely the same results whether the movement is rectilinear or in a circle. In both cases the total kinetic energy can be divided into two parts, respectively of the same numerical values, but there is an essential difference. In angular motion the axial rotation is nothing more than an abstract conception; in rectilinear movement it is a positive event.” – Nikola Tesla, same source.
As you note, Tesla does agree the moon’s KE is divided into two parts as Tesla writes so Tesla again agrees with SGW:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components — One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
“Still more remote from palpable truth is the equation of motion obtained in the manner indicated in Fig. 4, in which the first term represents the kinetic energy of translation of the body as a whole and the second that of its axial rotation. The former would demand a movement of the mass in a definite path and direction, all particles having the same velocity, the latter its simultaneous motion in another path and direction, the particles having different velocities. This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.” – Nikola Tesla, same source.
Yes, DREMT as I just showed in Tesla’s writing, when Tesla insists there are two independent moon kinetic energies, Tesla then seeks to “dispel” that there is only one KE because of his endeavor to dispel the notion the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis C while orbiting point O as you clip:
“This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences”.
Again, Tesla agrees with SGW in that Tesla dispels the abstract idea & illusion of no rotation on moon’s own axis, Tesla is convinced there really are two moon motion KE’s (rotational KE on its own axis thru C and translational KE orbiting O) as Tesla notes in your own ref. and your own ref. Madhavi shows in Fig. 2(b).
DREMT has self-debunked once again just like DREMT other source ref.s self-debunked:
“The Moon..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” but not the same face towards the sun causing lunar day/night cycles
^^ Why I no longer bother responding to Ball4 ^^
☺️
Because DREMT self-debunks so often, no DREMT response is needed. Again, Tesla in DREMT’s own ref. agrees with SGW:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components — One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
You see, this is typical Ball4. Ball4 is “quoting” the text which accompanies Fig. 4, as if Tesla is in agreement with it, when in fact Tesla wrote about Fig. 4:
“Still more remote from palpable truth is the equation of motion obtained in the manner indicated in Fig. 4, in which the first term represents the kinetic energy of translation of the body as a whole and the second that of its axial rotation. The former would demand a movement of the mass in a definite path and direction, all particles having the same velocity, the latter its simultaneous motion in another path and direction, the particles having different velocities. This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
You see how he manipulates and deliberately misrepresents the author? And it is well-known that Tesla was a “Non-Spinner”, so who knows who he is trying to kid with this.
Ball4 is just a troll.
It is erroneous that Tesla was a DREMT non-spinner (DREMT term). DREMT accurately quotes Tesla seeking to dispel the abstract idea causing the illusion of moon’s non-rotation: “This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
DREMT just mis-reads Tesla and quotes Tesla repeatedly out of context. Tesla actually agreed with SGW when one recognizes Tesla’s endeavors to dispel moon’s angular motion is an abstract idea, it is not abstract per Tesla. Tesla really wrote axial rotation about moon’s own axis is real added energy and NOT abstract:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Ball4 is just a troll.
snape…”Lets say the perimeter of a clock, from the 12 to the 6, measures 19 inches
0.5 hours = 30 minutes = 1,800 seconds = 19 inches?”
***
Ok, so that means the full circumference is 38″. Since C = 2pi.R, then R = C/2pi = C/6.28 = 6.05 inches. The length of one radian = 6.05 inches.
The arc-length is 19″ and represents pi radians = 3.14 radians.
If I apply my conversion, with the number of radians unknown:
radians/6.28 = arc-length/circumference
radians = 6.28(arc-length/circumference = 6.28(0.5) = 3.14 = pi radians.
That’s what you’d expect, 180 degrees = 19″ = pi radians.
If you want to add time in there, then:
0.5 hours = 30 minutes = 1,800 seconds = 19 inches = pi radians.
but only for a clock face with a 6.05″ radius.
Suppose you reduce the radius to 3″, where C = 2pi.R = 6.28(3) = 18.84″.
radians/6.28 = x/18.84″
x = 3.14/6.28(18.84″(0.5) = 9.42″.
So, 0.5 hours = 30 minutes = 1,800 seconds = 9.42″ inches = pi radians for a clock face with radius 3″.
On the Earth’s surface, major lines of longitude are 15 degrees apart. There are 57.3 degrees in a radian therefore 15 degrees = 15 degrees/57.3 degrees = 0.26 radians.
Taking the Equatorial diameter as 24,901 miles, we want to know the arc-length in miles of 15 degrees = 0.26 radians
0.26 radians/6.28 radians = x/24,901 miles
x = 0.26 radians(24,901 miles)/6.28radians
= 1030.9 miles.
Actually, this is for the major lines of longitude that divide the globe into hourly time divisions. 360 degrees/24 hours = 15 degrees/hour. There’s your relationship between time as we humans defined it and distance (arc-length). That’s right, one hour = 1030.9 miles and if you can get that to change length with velocity it’s a neat trick.
Lines of longitude are actually based on degrees.
1 degree = 1/57.3 radians = 0.0175 radians
Note: not all that accurate as you pointed out earlier since a radian is not quite 57.3 degrees. Neither is 2pi stated to required accuracy for units as large as miles.
0.0175 radians/6.28 radians = x/24,901 miles
x = 0.0175radians(24,901miles0/6,28 radians
= 69.39 miles
If you do it officially and divide the Equatorial circumference by 360 degrees = 24,901 miles/360 degrees = 69.17 miles. So my rough calculation using 57.3 degrees and a rounded 2 pi = 6.28 has caused the error.
Note that this only applies at the Equator. AS you go toward the Poles the Great Circles representing the lines of latitude get smaller and the distance between lines of longitude get correspondingly smaller.
bit of a typo…
“If I apply my conversion, with the number of radians unknown:
radians/6.28 = arc-length/circumference
radians = 6.28(arc-length/circumference = 6.28(0.5) = 3.14 = pi radians”.
Left out a bracket and the values…
If I apply my conversion, with the number of radians unknown:
radians/6.28 = arc-length/circumference
radians = 6.28(arc-length/circumference) =
= 6.28 radians(19″/38″) = 6.28(0.5) = 3.14 radians = pi radians.
typo city today…
“1 degree = 1/57.3 radians = 0.0175 radians”
obviously…
1 degree = 1/(57.3 radians/degree) = 0.0175 radians
The test results are in. Bindidon, SGW, Ball4 and Snape all test positive for “idiot”.
Says the clown who can’t even calculate the velocity of the near/far side of the moon, who confuses linear and angular units.
That’s why you belong to the freak show circus of moon non-spinners. You all would flunk kinematics, nor would you even prequalify to take the course.
SGW, rejecting reality is what makes you an idiot. Like Bindidon and Norman, you then resort to making things up.
You types are as predictable as you are irresponsible.
ClintR,
Both of my examples demonstrated a false equivalency. Thats the similar problem I was referring to.
The big La Nina forkast already fizzled
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Gordon,
I am not disagreeing with your calculations.
My point?
A 19 arc may subtend a radian, but that doesnt mean the 19 arc equals a radian. Arcs and angles are not the same thing.
snape…”A 19 arc may subtend a radian, but that doesnt mean the 19 arc equals a radian. Arcs and angles are not the same thing”.
The 19″ arc = 3.14 radians, or pi radians, as Clint also pointed out.
Whoops. Should be a 19 inch arc.
Eben
Trade Winds are really strong right now, which should add fuel to the la nina.
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
SnapeR
” … which should add fuel to the la nina. ”
Fuel? I’m afraid the gas tank will run out soon:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
One month ago, TCC’s MAR forecast was 30% neutral, 70% La Nina.
J.-P. D.
From ClintR, one of the most ignorant and stubborn posters on this blog, I read one more time the pure lie:
” Bindidon tries to misrepresent Newton. ”
Here are, again and again, the sources I have presented:
1. Newton’s Principia Scientifica, 3rd edition of 1726, original text in Latin
BOOK III, PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
https://tinyurl.com/y6q2lox9
2. Official translation by Andrew Motte, 1729, reedited in 1846 by Daniel Adee, New York
https://tinyurl.com/y6rd423p
Search for “PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.”
*
It is really incredible to see people ready to lie about something everybody can see they lie.
J.-P. D.
JD, you have repeatedly claimed that Newton’s discussion of libration “proved” Moon was rotating on its axis. You have done that numerous times. You are misrepresenting Newton. That makes you a fraud.
You are unable to admit that a ball on a string is NOT rotating about its axis. You cannot accept reality. That makes you an idiot.
Keep abusing your keyboard….
ClintR
” JD, you have repeatedly claimed that Newton’s discussion of libration “proved” Moon was rotating on its axis. ”
*
No I didn’t, and you perfectly know that.
You are, as usual, intentionally distorting what Newton himself wrote in Book 3 of his Principia.
Newton did not ‘discuss the libration’; he discussed ‘Moon’s rotation about its axis’, and explained the longitudinal libration as a consequence of Moon’s rotation about its axis.
Look at the original texts in Latin and English, instead of misrepresenting what Newton wrote.
Newton wrote on page 52 of his original text in Latin:
” Quoniam vero Lunæ circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus semper respiciet quamproximè, et propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde a Terrâ.
Hæc est libratio Lunæ in longitudinem: Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex latitudine Lunæ et inclinatione axis ejus ad planum eclipticæ. ”
*
Here is Andrew Motte’s translation:
” 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. ”
*
You can try to manipulate us as long as you want; but you can’t change, let alone erase, what Newton himself wrote.
J.-P. D.
JD, thanks for proving me right. You are a fraud and an idiot.
Newton’s work proved the effect of gravity on an orbiting body. It’s the same as a ball on a string. One side always faces the center of orbit. That’s what Moon is doing, and that is what you are trying to deny. You are so perverted you can’t even admit the ball on a string is not rotating on its axis.
You’re anti-science.
Keep abusing your keyboard….
Clint,
It’s Sunday. Shouldn’t you be out performing in your freak show act at the circus??
Still waiting on the moon velocity calcs for the near and far side.
Now that SGW has proven himself to be an idiot, all he can do is troll.
Consequently, we can expect him to continue with such mindless garbage.
Gordon,
This is really just a semantic quibble, and I could be wrong –
I would say the 19 inch arc subtends 3.14 radians.
But because the arc and the angle it subtends are different entities, it does not make sense to say they are equal to one another.
snape…”But because the arc and the angle it subtends are different entities, it does not make sense to say they are equal to one another”.
I specified they are equal only when R = 6.05. the radius of a circle where a hemisphere = 19″.
Again, 1 radian = an arc-length of the radius length placed along the circumference of the circle. It requires pi times the radius for a semi-circle and 2pi times R for the full circle. Your 19″ is a semi-circle therefore it contains pi radians.
The arc-length is both 3.14 radians and 19″ in your case. Both lengths are the same.
snape…thinking through your semantic claim in more depth. No, it’s not semantics, it’s a duality.
The relationship between the radius of a circle and the circumference has been with us since the times of Euclid, Pythagorus, Archimedes, Aristotle and beyond. The theory behind the radian dates only to Cotes, circa 1714. Therefore, the radian is a subset of the mathematics of a circle.
Because the radian measures the same arc-length of a circumference of radius, R, it is measuring the same arc-length already defines in linear measure, that was discovered centuries before.
We seem to be making too much out of angles. An angle is nothing more than the distance between two converging lines that can be defined in trigonometry as the ratio of an angle in a triangle to the various sides. Therefore, the sine of the angle becomes the opposite side length divided by the hypotenuse length, etc.
In a circle, an angle is defined by the arc-length on a circumference of radius R. Arc-length is defined as:
Larc = 2pi.R (theta/360 degrees)
where theta is the angle formed by the arc-length between two radial lines. The ratio of theta/360 degrees is the same as my ratio of radians/2pi = radians/6.28. Therefore Larc can be written as:
Larc = 2pi.R(radians/2pi)
If we know R, in metres, inches, or whatever, then we know the length of 1 radian to be the length of R. We also know the ratio of the Larc in metres, inches, or whatever in linear measure.
My equation has nothing to do with semantics, I was challenged to produce a conversion between radians and linear measure and I did.
Nothing magical, it’s simply a comparison of any ratio from basic mathematics.
Gordon shrieks:
“I was challenged to produce a conversion between radians and linear measure and I did!”
No you did not. As an example, a conversion factor takes the following form:
12″ = 1 foot
1 m/s = 3.28 ft/s
1 Btu = 778.1693 ft-lbf
1 radian = 180 degrees/Pi
All you did was solve the s = r theta equation.
Please refer to the following for conversion factors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
There is no conversion factor that converts radians to a linear measurement. When you convert a linear measurement to another unit, it always will be a linear measurement.
You are confused, just like you were with curvilinear translation.
skeptic…”There is no conversion factor that converts radians to a linear measurement”.
I am talking about converting radians to linear measure. I don’t know why you have to rush off to Google to see the relationship, it’s blatantly obvious.
A radian is defined as the arc-length equal to one radius length. If you take an arc length equal to 1 radius and lay it out on the circumference of a circle, it fits into the circumference 2pi times.
That same radius length in metres, inches, feet, centimetres, or miles fits into the circumference 2pi x R times. The common factor between radians and miles is the radius length.
Why are you so obtuse that you cannot see that?
radians/2pi = arc-length/circumference length.
Your conversion factor is R since it is common to both the radian and any linear measure.
It’s no wonder you alarmists have so much trouble with the physics underlying global warming and the fact that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
Gordon,
Just like you don’t understand curvilinear translation, you can’t seem to grasp the concept of unit conversions. Did you read the Wikipedia article. It’s very simple. It’s what most people learned in school prior to taking physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Conversion_factors
I repeat. There is NO conversion factor that converts radians to a linear measure. Find me a published conversion factor. There is none. The only conversion factor regarding radians is:
2Pi Radians = 360 degrees.
“R” is NOT a conversion factor. The formula s = R times theta is an equation that relates s, R and theta. That is not a conversion factor.
I don’t know why you are being so dense. This is the reason you are in the moon non-rotation cult. You have limited learning skills.
Bindidon
[Fuel? Im afraid the gas tank will run out soon]
The Trade Winds are a leading indicator. Im guessing the model projections will eventually follow. Take a screen shot to see how they change over time.
SnapeR
” Take a screen shot to see how they change over time. ”
Please read my last comment more carefully:
” One month ago, TCCs MAR forecast was 30% neutral, 70% La Nina. ”
and compare this with Fig. 2 in the second link’s source.
J.-P. D.
OTOH,
When trade winds look like this (red means weaker than normal), you can bet were headed for an el nino:
From October, 2015
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1064.0;attach=21445;image
Gave this astronomy site a miss for a week, but came back to see if people had decided wether the moon was made of cheese or not.
Sad to see the discussion is still going.
At least we have a temperature update this week.
Mark Wapples
Should this ridiculous, lunatic discussion indeed bother you that much, what about enjoying moon-free updates at WUWT?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/
Happy Sunday from Germoney
J.-P. D.
mark….”Sad to see the discussion is still going”.
Not up to the challenge? Weigh in on your opinion, hopefully backed by science, as to whether the Moon rotates on a local axis.
ClintR says:
November 17, 2020 at 9:13 AM
Yes Snape, the ball on a string is a good model of orbiting. The ball always has the same side facing the center of the orbit. It’s the same as Moon.
And there are several other moons in our solar system that are also orbiting, but not rotating about their axes. Of course, you wouldn’t know anything about the science.
The “tidal locking” debunk is coming. Several more sleepless nights for you idiots, first.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
It’s been almost two weeks since the above gem from Tonto the clown and he still hasn’t provided the names of those (other?) unicorn moons that are magically orbiting but not spinning about their planets. Is a reply forthcoming? I surmise, no.
One of the many fascinating features of the Solar System is the presence of moons moving in a synchronous way around their planet, as experienced, for example, by earthlings looking always on the same, familiar face of their satellite.
Indeed, 18 moons of our Solar System move in 1:1 spin–orbit resonance: while performing a complete revolution on an (approximately) Keplerian ellipse around their principal body, they also complete a rotation around their spin axis; in this way, these moons always show the same side to their host planet.
The list of these 18 moons is as follows: Moon (Earth); Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto (Jupiter); Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus (Saturn); Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Miranda (Uranus); Charon (Pluto); minor bodies with mean radius smaller than 100km are not considered.
Worth mentioning is also the strange case of the 3:2 resonance of Mercury around the Sun (i.e., Mercury rotates three times on its spin axis, while making two orbital revolutions around the Sun). Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun in 3:2 resonance, i.e. tidal locking is not always 1:1.
There exists a Mathematical theory which is consistent with the existence of all spin–orbit resonances of the Solar System; in other words, it proves a theorem, in the framework of a simple restricted spin–orbit model, that establishes the existence of periodic orbits for parameter values corresponding to all the satellites (or Mercury) in our Solar System observed in spin–orbit resonance.
Non-spinners fantasies: Ball on a string, horse on a mgr, penny around a quarter, the Moon has no poles, confusion about inertial frames…
Yes, we get it, there are 18 moons in the solar system that are not rotating on their own axes…so what?
Snape, you seem to be reiterating things that don’t help your case, in hopes they will help your case. IOW, trying the same things over and over, hoping for different results, i.e. “insanity”.
The news is you don’t have a case. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. It is only orbiting, like the ball on a string.
And “tidal locking” has been completely debunked, if you were paying attention. (Mercury’s axial rotating doesn’t fit your debunked “tidal locking”. Mercury is just more “cold water” on the smoldering remnants of your axial rotation campfire.)
ClintR says:
November 13, 2020 at 9:46 AM
Snape, “tidal locking” is the nonsense they made up because they knew it was ridiculous to claim Moon was rotating about its axis, when we can clearly see it is not. So they made up “tidal locking” to confuse the issue, and fool idiots like you.
I think you were the one that supplied the link for this: “What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
I’m going to debunk that nonsense in a few days. I’m giving rats a chance to desert their sinking ship. Do you still cling to the “tidal locking” nonsense, or do you want to save yourself?
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
So it’s been 2.5 weeks since Tonto the clown promised a debunk of tidal locking. Nothing yet, except more nonsense and clownish BS.
In 1665, an outbreak of the plague forced the University of Cambridge to close for two years. During those two years, the 23-year-old genius Isaac Newton conceived the law of gravitation, the laws of motion, and the fundamental concepts of differential calculus. Twenty years later the result appeared in the Principia.
During the 2020 pandemic Tonto the clown entertained the internet with magic tricks and general pinheadery. Times have changed.
Snape, in your incompetence, you must have missed it:
“Tidal Locking” Debunked
Galileo is credited with the first experiments verifying that gravity affects all objects equally, regardless of their mass. Two objects of unequal mass would fall at the same rate, even if one of the objects were 100 times the mass of the other.
Centuries later, astronauts performed the same experiment on Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8
A hammer and feather fall at the same rate, due to gravity. If the hammer were secured on one end of a long bar, and the feather secured on the other end of the bar, the assembly would fall without any induced torque, or rotation.
Tha’s established science, aka “reality”.
The false idea that Moon rotates about its axis started in astrology. It was never corrected, because the false belief has no effect on anything. Since it is not happening, it has no effect.
But, it has become part of the cult beliefs, and has been supported by the “tidal locking” nonsense. The problem is, gravity does not induce a torque on a sphere. It the sphere were originally not rotating, it would still not be rotating, in a gravity field. If the sphere were originally rotating, gravity could not stop the rotation.
People that understand the physics involved probably now see why “tidal locking” is debunked. But, here’s an example for others that may still be confused:
Take our moon and slice it down the middle, like cutting an orange in half. Now, hollow out both hemispheres of the moon. Fill one hemisphere with hammers, and the other hemisphere with feathers. Let’s guess that the hemisphere filled with hammers has 100 times more mass of the other hemisphere. Now, put the halves back together.
Would the modified moon start rotating about its axis?
Of course not, gravity cannot create a torque on a moon. But idiots have no understanding of the science, so they only believe what their cult teaches:
“What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
There are 3 sentences in that quote, all 3 completely FALSE. Yet idiots willingly suck up and swallow such nonsense and regurgitate it constantly.
Just as the simple analogies debunk Moon rotation, the simple hammer/feather experiment debunks the “tidal locking” nonsense.
Reality sinking one false belief after another.
Oh I’ve seen this; I thought it was very funny. Although it’s also sad because it proves that you don’t even know where to begin!
I can’t help but notice that this Snape fellow has really done a number on your psyche; care to tell us more about it? Feel free to use this… https://i.imgflip.com/e94sv.jpg
Yes Snape, that “Snape fellow” denies reality also. That makes both of you idiots.
And also like that “Snape fellow”, you don’t know how to place your comments, so no one can tell who you are addressing.
It’s almost as if you two idiots are twins….
So, your method is simply to say “There are 3 sentences in that quote, all 3 completely FALSE” but to offer no proof, because you have none. All three of those claims are scientifically supported by data collected from the many missions and experiments carried out in over 60 years of space exploration. All these data are available to any and all who are interested.
You and rest of the non-spinners have fallen victim to the law of small numbers whereby you are likely to draw a misleading conclusion if your sample is small. Your sample consists of ball on a string, horse on a mgr, two coins and Tesla newspaper article from 1919.
The proof is the science demonstrated by Galileo, the NASA astronaut’s “hammer/feather experiment”, and centuries in between of related experiments/observations.
Your failure to accept that reality makes you an idiot.
The simple hammer/feather experiment destroys the “tidal locking” nonsense. But idiots like you can’t even understand simple things. You can’t offer any meaningful argument against the hammer/feather, so you have to make up nonsense.
Tonto the clown, here is a chance for you to shine for something other than your usual comedy routine. Since I don’t recall reading anything about hammers and feathers in the Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides documents published by the JPL and NASA, specifically the DE430 and DE431, please reference your source.
You still don’t know how to place your comments. And now, you don’t even know how to view a linked video!
Even Norman knows how to place his comments, and view a video. That makes you even dumber than Norman. And there’s not many that can say that….
skeptic…”The ball has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum. See the following (2:12-2:15):
When the string is released the orbital angular momentum becomes linear momentum, giving the ball the impetus to keep the ball moving in the tangent direction to the release point. The spin angular momentum also continues, keeping the ball spinning on its own axis.”
Link is posted above at SkepticGoneWild says:
November 29, 2020 at 1:38 PM . It is way too long to repost down here.
****
For one, the video says nothing about spin on the ball, that is your conclusion and it’s wrong. The ball cannot rotate with a spin if it is attached to a string.
I stopped watching the video when it became apparent the presenters were hackers. They showed a marble traveling down a ramp and going around a vertical loop, using the alleged centripetal forces of gravity AND contact force. The only centripetal force is gravity.
These clowns are confusing forces in static equilibrium (gravity and contact forces) with kinematic forces related to dynamic motion while completely omitting the momentum of the marble.
Referenced at time 5:32 in video.
Secondly, at the 3 o’clock and 12 o’clock points on the loop, there are absolutely no contact forces acting on the marble and the only force acting on the marble is gravity. That’s true because the marble’s motion is purely vertical and horizontal at those locations, requiring no containment.
According to the hackers, there is an equal and opposite force pushing and pulling on the marble at 12 o’clock. If it was true, That would cause an acceleration greater than gravity on the marble, surely pushing it off the track.
The hackers are confused as to the actual conditions. I agree that the maximum acceleration of the marble is at 6 o’clock, but what keeps the marble from dropping off the track is the marble’s momentum. It has nothing to do with contact forces which simple constrain the marble from shooting off in a tangential direction.
They have claimed that two forces are acting to produce the relationship:
mv^2/r = mg.
The left hand equation is derived from the velocity of the marble which is not pointing in the same direction as the gravity vector. In fact, it’s not officially a force, it is an equivalent forced derived through some fancy geometry from Newton.
https://spark.iop.org/proof-f-mv2r#gref
which is based on the properties of chords in circles:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/circle-intersect-chords.html
They have cancelled the m’s to get:
v^2/r = g
v = (gr)^0.5
Then they conclude, without explanation, that the equation above can be used to determine when the velocity of the marble is too low to overcome the effect of gravity.
Serious bs. They are claiming the marble’s motion is determined by static forces. Their reference to a contact force and a gravitational force describes static equilibrium. They have completely omitted the marble’s momentum.
I have seen these clowns before and there forte is entertainment, not physics.
Gordon spews:
“The ball cannot rotate with a spin if it is attached to a string.”
Of course the ball does not rotate wrt the string because the string is rotating at the same rate you complete idiot. The rotation is measured wrt to the fixed inertial reference frame. And then you ramble on and on about marbles?
The ball simply cannot start rotating on its own axis after release without some torque being provided. The string cannot supply a torque because it acts through the ball’s center of mass. This means it was already rotating on its own axis prior to release per Newton’s first law of motion. It has spin angular momentum.
You obviously forgot much of your alleged education. You don’t understand curvilinear translation. You don’t understand the simple concept of conversion factors. Objects do not stop rotating on their own axis until they start translating, and the ball on a string is not translating.
All the laws of physics and principles of kinematics indicate the ball on a sting rotates on its own axis. Your mistaken beliefs do not matter.
SGW, you make the same mistake over and over. You can’t learn.
If the ball were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. The axial rotation you observe after the string is released is due to the tension of the string. It’s called “Newton’s Third Law”.
Don’t even try to understand. Idiots can’t handle physics.
I’ll ignore the dumbass comments from our bearded lady freak.
Pretending to ignore, while throwing out more childish nonsense, is your way of acknowledging that all this is over your head.
And, that proves me right, again.
skeptic…” The rotation is measured wrt to the fixed inertial reference frame. And then you ramble on and on about marbles?”
You are so thick you cannot view the video at your own link. You used it as proof of your views yet you lack the background to see the flaws in the video.
You reveal yourself as an amateur with your incessant references to inertial frames. Inertial frames have nothing to do with a ball rotating about its own axis. Such a rotation is caused by a torque that produces angular velocity about its axis and once in such angular motion the frame of reference has nothing to do with whether it is spinning or not.
An inertial frame is mposed on reality by the human mind, there is no such thing in actuality. A ball spinning about its axis is a ball spinning about its axis. It would spin whether humans were around to view it or not. If there is a string attached to the ball and the ball is spun about someone’s head that is not a rotation about the ball’s local axis.
If that ball is released at exactly the right moment, with no torques being applied by the string, which is unlikely, the ball would sail off on a tangent and still not be spinning about its axis. You clowns see a ball spun in space by an astronaut and leap to unscientific conclusions.
Gordon,
You blatantly ignore kinematics and kinematic conventions:
“Only when we go to laws of motion, the reference frame needs to be the inertial frame. From the point of view of kinematics, no
reference frame is more fundamental or absolute.”
[https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME562/bajaj562chpt2.pdf]
That’s the problem with you clowns. You make up your own rules that are absolutely contrary to the well established conventions of kinematics.
It is pointless to argue with you since you have ZERO understanding of kinematics. You just ramble on with senseless pronouncements.
The ball has both orbital angular momentum as well as spin angular momentum. The fact that the ball spins on its own axis after release means it was spinning on its own axis prior to release. (Newtons first law)
Yes SGW, Gordon needs to read Tesla ref. provided by DREMT to learn why Gordon is wrong about the moon’s and ball on string’s motion:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561006
Gordon shrieks:
“If that ball is released at exactly the right moment, with no torques being applied by the string, which is unlikely, the ball would sail off on a tangent and still not be spinning about its axis. You clowns see a ball spun in space by an astronaut and leap to unscientific conclusions.”
Tesla disagrees with you. Tesla stated:
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding.”
…and Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So what are you missing?
Actually DREMT remains wrong by misreading Tesla. Tesla in Tesla’s own words (not DREMT’s) dispelled the abstract arguments of DREMT that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis as an illusion using the ball on string example & others, Tesla wrote on the moon’s and ball’s motion being rotation on their own axis:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
#2
…and Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So what are you missing?
That’s DREMT’s wrong abstract argument with DREMT’s words, not Tesla’s exact words where Tesla’s argument dispelled the abstract notion that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis with physical examples. Tesla:
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding.”
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561006
Another debunk that nobody figured.
The ball swinging on the string is just a misleading and ignorant argument that can be debunked in seconds. the ball is forced into synchronization orbit and spin because the string is attached to the surface of it, which applies the torque to it and forces it to spin.
If you take that ball and slice it into two halves with just a narrow slit in between the two halves and connected by a pin in the middle, now connect the string to the pin so it can freely rotate ,
now swing your stupid ball around and see that it keeps facing in the same direction, and you see all sides of it.
“…now connect the string to the pin so it can freely rotate”
So you have to make it free and able to rotate on its own axis, in order for it to (as you see it), not rotate on its own axis. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
With the normal ball on a string, the ball is not free to rotate on its own axis, because it is held in place by the string. Yet you believe it is rotating on its own axis, anyway. So then you devise an alternative in which you cut the ball in half, and the ball becomes free to rotate on its own axis…so that you can then claim it is not rotating on its own axis (as you see it)!
Weird.
Wrong Eben. The ball on a string is a perfect model of an orbiting object. Your example, if I understand it (?), would make the ball resemble a yoyo, or some such. That does not model orbiting.
In pure orbital motion, all points of the object move in concentric circles. One side always faces the center of orbit. Like the ball on a string, or Moon.
It’s really quite simple. The reason idiots want to pervert reality has something to do with their cult religion, I suppose.
Eben states:
“the ball is forced into synchronization orbit and spin because the string is attached to the surface of it, which applies the torque to it and forces it to spin.”
You got the first part right, but the second part wrong. The string’s tension acts through the center of mass of the ball and therefore cannot apply torque.
The ball is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. There is only one axis of rotation, at the center of the orbit. The ball and string rotate about that.
That’s exactly what he said , that’s the whole point
What’s exactly what who said, what’s the whole point?
skeptic…”You got the first part right, but the second part wrong. The string’s tension acts through the center of mass of the ball and therefore cannot apply torque”.
Ergo, the ball cannot possibly spin on its own axis/COG.
skeptic…”You got the first part right, but the second part wrong. The string’s tension acts through the center of mass of the ball and therefore cannot apply torque”.
Ergo, the ball cannot possibly spin on its own axis.
Gordon,
You missed the point as usual. Just like with curvilinear translation. Just like with the radians issue.
The ball on the string is spinning on its own axis when released. You are saying it was not spinning on its own axis before. So what would cause it to start spinning upon release then??? Tension in the string will not, since that tension acts through the center of mass. So the conclusion is that the ball was spinning on its own axis prior to release.
That conclusion is also confirmed by analysis. The ball makes one rotation on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame for each orbit.
Again Gordon is wrong; Tesla: “the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561006
I very happy to find this site on bing, just what I was looking for 😀 too saved
to bookmarks.
skeptics…”You blatantly ignore kinematics and kinematic conventions:”
I find it’s people like you, who feel impelled to throw ad homs and insults without provided proof to back them, who lack an understanding of physics, or science in general.
Once gain, reference frames are a product of the human mind. We impose them on actuality (the real physical world) then wannabees who cannot think for themselves, insist that actuality must obey man-made rules and laws.
You don’t need reference frames for basic kinematics problems. During my first year engineering course in which we studied kinematics in-depths we did not once use a reference frame because we understand that everything we applied was happening in the same reference frame. That is true for almost any motion on Earth or in the solar system.
There would be no need for a reference frame unless one was studying relative motion and even then, a reference frame only makes it easier to apply math without visualizing the problem. That’s not to say one cannot work out problems in relative motion without a references frame, it is possible, just a lot of hard work. Look at the early work of Lorenz which is the basis of Einstein’s relativity theories. Too bad Lorenz did not understand time either.
In the current problem, a very simple problem in kinematics where a rigid body is orbiting a planet or a ball orbiting someone’s head attached to a string, it’s ridiculous to use a reference frame simply because it is understood.
You are using a reference frame to create a red-herring argument that the Moon must be rotating on its axis because it APPEARS that way from a different reference frame. You just admitted a ball attached to a string is not rotating on a local axis so one has to wonder what dementia is causing you blindness when it comes to seeing the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its local axis just as the ball cannot rotate on its local axis.
You bray about me not being able to understand kinematics when in fact you cannot distinguish between local rotation and curvilinear translation. You have gotten yourself boxed in to a myopic definition of curvilinear translation and you refuse to get it that the Moon in its orbit fulfills all the requirements of curvilinear translation.
What are they? One is that all points on the body move in parallel to each other at all times. Even if you imply your claim that lines in a body, whatever that means, must move in parallel, you fail to understand that a line can be curved as well. That’s why our theory that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees is not completely correct. If the triangle is on a sphere, that changes. That triangle is made of curved lines.
The second is that all the particles move at the same angular velocity. I have demonstrated several times to you that all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles, which means they have to be moving in parallel to each other.
I have demonstrated they are also moving at the same angular velocity as a radial line from the Moon’s external axis on Earth to the Moon’s centre. All points on the radial line through the Moon are constrained to move at the same angular velocity, otherwise the Moon must fall apart.
We non-spinners proved you wrong a long time ago yet you insist on dragging up red-herring arguments about reference frames in a pathetic attempt to save face.
Gordon squawks:
“You have gotten yourself boxed in to a myopic definition of curvilinear translation and you refuse to get it that the Moon in its orbit fulfills all the requirements of curvilinear translation!”
No Gordon. You just either refuse to accept the standard definition of translation that can be found in ANY kinematic reference, or you forgot.
The moon is NOT translating curvilinearly. These are the requirements for ANY type of translation:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Draw a line through the moon. Does that line remain parallel to its ORIGINAL position throughout its motion? No. Does that line rotate? Yes. You have two requirements that are not met for translation.
From Dr. Madhavi:
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion”
Does any straight line inside the moon keep the same direction during the motion? NO! Any line is always changing direction. Look at Figure 1 in the Dr. Madhavi paper. The first object shows rectilinear translation, and the second object to the right shows curvilinear translation. Notice the object does NOT change orientation at all, and line A2-B2 remains parallel to A1-B1. Look at Figure 2A. THAT is an example of curvilinear translation.
Another requirement for curvilinear translation:
“All points move on congruent curves”
[https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Do all points on the moon move on congruent curves? No! You even admit that a point on the far side and near side move along concentric circles. Do you know what “congruent” means??
NONE of the movement of the moon fulfills the requirements for curvilinear translation.
All the above indicates your understanding of kinematics REALLY sucks big time, which is why you are in this tiny moon non-rotation cult.
Gordon makes up his own definitions of curvilinear translation:
“One is that all points on the body move in parallel to each other at all times.”
Wrong! The requirement is:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times.”
[https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Notice how Gordon does not give any references for his made-up phony definitions?
REMAINS PARALLEL to its ORIGINAL position. The lines orientation will never change. Its direction will never change.
Another Gordon phony curvilinear translation requirement:
“The second is that all the particles move at the same angular velocity.”
Totally WRONG! Notice again that Gordon does not supply any reference source.
The actual requirement is that all particles move at the same VELOCITY, not ANGULAR velocity.
“Note, all points in a rigid body subjected to translation move
with the same velocity and acceleration”
[http://faculty.mercer.edu/jenkins_he/documents/Section16-1-16-3.pdf]
And in my earlier DEI reference it states:
“In each of the two cases of translation, the motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body, since all the points have the same motion.”
With both cases of translation, all points have the same motion, which means they would have the same velocity.
I really don’t know why Gordon posts his garbage when it is so easily refuted.
Gordon spews:
“You dont need reference frames for basic kinematics problems. During my first year engineering course in which we studied kinematics in-depths we did not once use a reference frame because we understand that everything we applied was happening in the same reference frame.”
Unbelievable!!! Do you even KNOW what a reference frame is??
Wikipedia has a decent definition:
“In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements within that frame”
How in the world are you going to solve kinematics problems without a reference frame?
“Kinematics is all about reference frames, vectors, differentiation, constraints and coordinates.”
[https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-003sc-engineering-dynamics-fall-2011/newton2019s-laws-vectors-and-reference-frames/MIT2_003SCF11Kinematic.pdf]
Gordon,
In kinematics we use reference frames in order to mathematically describe the motion of a rigid body with vectors. Refer to the following:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
Look at the figure at the bottom of page 3. It says:
“The most general motion of a rigid body in space is equivalent, at any given instant, to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
For our purposes we are going to make the orange body shown to be a ball on a string, with Point A being at the ball’s center of mass, and Point B being on the outside edge of the ball. All the equations noted are still valid. Notice what it says about the velocity vector for B. V(B) is the sum of the velocity vector for A plus a rotation of B about A. We know what omega w is because the position vector for B relative to A makes one complete rotation per orbit.
So there is your proof using vectors that the ball on a string can be described as a translation plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.
This is also why you clowns have a difficult time admitting the center of mass and the far side of the ball (the moon as well) have different velocities.
And finally and perhaps more importantly, notice the reference frames used in the figure. You have two coordinate systems: X-Y-Z, and X’-Y’-Z’. They are both inertial since they do not rotate with respect to each other. And there is only ONE WAY to calculate the rotations for the object. None of this monkey business about a reference frame rotating CW or CCW.
skeptic…”From Dr. Madhavi:
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion”
Does any straight line inside the moon keep the same direction during the motion? NO!”
****
How would you expect any straight line inside a body undergoing curvilinear translation to follow a straight line? Obviously, a different definition is required for motion following a curved path.
Besides, there are no straight lines on rigid bodies unless someone paints the line onto the body. Therefore, with a rigid body, one refers to a particular point on the body. If all points on the rigid body move parallel to a horizontal surface, at the same velocity, the body is undergoing rectilinear translation.
Translation simple means a change of position with the proviso, in the case of rectilinear translation, that the body moves without rotation along a straight line. The moment the straight line becomes a curve, the rules change. It is no longer possible to speak of a non-rotating rigid body moving in the same direction along a straight line.
Therefore, we must define the motion using changing polar coordinates AT ANY ONE INSTANT. We define the change of direction of the curve using its first derivative, the slope of the tangent line to the curve at any one instant.
We create a radial line from the axis of rotation through the rigid body’s COM and use its rate of change to define the motion of the rigid body. If all points on the rigid body along that radial line are turning with the radial line then all points are turning in parallel concentric circles. That means at ANY INSTANT, all points on the body are moving parallel to each other at the same angular velocity.
Surely you don’t think curvilinear translation is restricted to something as useless as a gondola car on a ferris wheel, or the stupid example used in some textbooks of a bus turning in a circle with it’s wheels attached to two rotating rods.
You can work out both of those problems using rectilinear translation in a plane. Curvilinear translation is the equivalent of rectilinear translation applied to a curved path. It has no such restrictions as you have applied and anyone with a smattering of sense would see that.
With regard to the Moon, it cannot be regarded as a rigid body rotating on a rigid member, like the spokes on a flywheel. The Moon has only linear velocity/momentum and in that respect it is instantaneous performing rectilinear translation. However, Earth’s gravitational forces pull on it through successive instants aiming it in a different direction.
Instant by instant the Moon’s linear momentum is guided into an orbital path. That becomes curvilinear translation and I don’t give a hoot what any textbook author claims. The motion fulfills the requirements of translation and it’s on a curve with all points of the Moon moving parallel to each other at the same angular velocity.
The Moon is not really rotating about the Earth, it is trying to follow a straight line and is guided bit by bit into an orbital path. It is revolving around the Earth and orbiting around the Earth but you cannot classify that as true rotation about the Earth,
With a flywheel it’s quite different. All points on the rim are rotating about the axle because they are attached to the rigid body and forced to do so.
Gordon shrieks:
“How would you expect any straight line inside a body undergoing curvilinear translation to follow a straight line?”
LMAO!! That’s not what the definition says!!! OMG. This is why you are so confused. You cannot understand simple sentences. The Madhavi paper says AGAIN:
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion”.
Any straight line “keeps the same direction”, not “follows a straight line”!!
For example, Figure 2A in the Madhavi paper, the line AB keeps the same direction during the motion. And with the gondola, any line drawn through the gondola will remain pointed in the same direction throughout its motion. Look at Figure 1 in the Madhavi paper. The middle figure shows curvilinear translation. Line A1B1 and A2B2 are pointing in the same direction.
Gordon moans again:
“Surely you dont think curvilinear translation is restricted to something as useless as a gondola car on a ferris wheel, or the stupid example used in some textbooks of a bus turning in a circle with its wheels attached to two rotating rods.”
This has nothing to do with what I think. I backed up the definition of curvilinear translation with multiple kinematic references. You did not. The definitions are clear. A translating object DOES NOT change its orientation. What is your problem? The definitions are what they are. I don’t make them up!!
This is why you fail to understand that the ball on a string rotates on its own axis. You do not have a grasp of simple kinematics or reference frames.
Gordon spews:
“Instant by instant the Moons linear momentum is guided into an orbital path. That becomes curvilinear translation and I dont give a hoot what any textbook author claims!”
That’s because you are clueless about the concepts of kinematics. You have a mental block. You can’t grasp the concept of curvilinear translation just as you cannot grasp the concept of a ball on a string rotating about it’s own axis, just as you reject the concept of reference frames.
Example problem proving a ball whirling around on a string does rotate on its own axis.
We will use the figure and equations shown at the bottom of page 3 in the following reference, which indicates the general motion of a rigid body:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
For our purposes we are going to replace the orange body shown with a ball on a string. Point A will be at the ball’s center of mass (9 m from origin “O”), and Point “B” will be on the far side edge of ball (10 m from origin)
To make the problem easy to calculate, we will use convenient numbers:
Length of String = 8 m
Diameter of Ball = 2 m
angular velocity of the ball’s orbit = 1 rad/s CCW
rB/A = 1 m (see diagram)
Per the equations shown in the diagram:
V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A)
Our contention is the ball rotates on its own axis at the same rate of orbit as the ball. Let’s see if the numbers work, and solve the above equation.
V(A) = wr = (1 rad/s)9 m = 9 m/s
V(B/A) = wrB/A = (1 rad/s)1 m = 1 m/s
Therefore: V(B) = 9 m/s + 1 m/s = 10 m/s
Now let’s calculate V(B) without using relative velocities:
V(B) = wr = (1 rad/s)10 m = 10 m/s (check)
Just to be clear the ball rotates on its own axis CCW and has tangential velocity of 1 m/s relative to its center of mass.
So the center of mass has a velocity of 9 m/s in the CCW direction. But the ball is rotating on its own axis relative to its center of mass with a tangential velocity of 1 m/s CCW. So the tangential velocity of ball at point B relative to A is 1 m/s in the CCW direction. So you add that relative velocity to the velocity of the center of mass, and you come up with 10 m/s for V(B). (check) The tangential velocity of the near side of the ball wrt “A” is in the clockwise direction, so you subtract 1m/s to get 8 m/s. Vnear side = wr = (1 rad/s)8 m = 8 m/s (check)
The numbers all check out, proving the ball whirling on a string does rotate about its own axis. And the coordinate system is very clear, so there can be no contention regarding the calculation of velocities and angular velocities.
Your error is that you are combining a translation of the center of mass, in a circle, with axial rotation about the center of mass, and then acting like you have two rotations. The ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation. If it did, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of the revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
SkepticGoneWild
This is the kind of mistake that NASA makes all the time i.e. from a physicist that worked at NASA –
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-around-the-earth/answer/Paul-Filmer?ch=8&share=8160ef95&srid=TubC
How the hell did NASA get man to the Moon if they couldn’t do a calculation using DREM’s hypothesis? Beats me.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
ftop_t proved there are two axes of rotation (1 internal and 1 external) for the observer position as shown in ftop_t animated demonstrations and in ftop_t mathematics.
Funny too, ftop_t bungled the transmographer execution many posts ago.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
ftop_t is obviously wrong, again.
#2
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
Sometimes it best to leave visual clues to answer certain questions, such as whether the ball on the string is also* rotating on its axis.
https://i.postimg.cc/RVtcKvN5/Ball-on-a-String.gif
In the above the NSWE axis that “follows” the ball ,is one clue.
* needless to say, the ball is also rotating around an axis located at the tethered end of the string.
#3
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
ftop_t is obviously wrong, again – after previously blundering use of the transmographer. ftop_t actually proved there are two axes of rotation (1 internal and 1 external) for the figures used.
#4
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
Only to DREMT who can’t follow ftop_t mathematics proving 2 axes of rotation for the moving figures.
#5
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
I see DREMT has no defense of DREMT’s wrong position or ftop_t’s mathematics showing the figures used rotate about an internal AND external axis like the moon & orbiting ball on string. DREMT remains wrong with no defense and will endlessly repeat inacurate comments.
#6
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
The spinners winning position continues, DREMT has no defense, will forever continue on the losing side of the debate.
#7
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
To an observer in the room, the CCW rotating once on its own axis ball on string points N,W,S,E,N orbiting the central axis once as proven by ftop_t figures and the transmographer. To an observer on the ball, the room rotates around the ball once per orbit as proven by ftop_t figures and the transmographer.
DREMT will never agree and repeat DREMT’s obviously failed position forever.
#8
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
#8 failure, keep those failures of physics going DREMT, very entertaining. Or try a defense if DREMT must; it will also fail just like the ftop_t bungles.
#9
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
#9 failure, they just keep on coming. ftop_t obviously bungled the proof just like ftop_t bungled the transmographer usage. Please consult Tesla’s paper for the proper proof in his figure:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
#10
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
10 DREMT failures! Please consult Tesla’s paper for the proper proof in his figure:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
#11
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, as ftop_t proved.
11 failures. Tesla paper proves ftop_t is wrong.
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Ball4, Good pick up from Tesla’s publication. The only entertainment left is to watch DREM squirm. Well done.
On that note, I can feel another Tboashooaxor,afp #n coming on or maybe a PST.
No, MikeR. Ball4 is misrepresenting Tesla:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561006
There is no misrepresentation DREMT, my paragraph clip is direct Tesla quote and figure description, anyone can check by using google to find Tesla paper proving ftop_t is wrong:
“the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
DREMT should check before writing these embarrassingly wrong comments. #`12 DREMT failure, the DREMT fails just keep on coming.
#2
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561006
skeptic…”The second is that all the particles move at the same angular velocity.
Totally WRONG! Notice again that Gordon does not supply any reference source.
The actual requirement is that all particles move at the same VELOCITY, not ANGULAR velocity”.
**********
It’s apparent you have no reasoning ability of your own, that you must reference authority figures, with no ability to understand if they are wrong.
If you consider a rigid body, like the Moon, orbiting the Earth in a circular orbit (the orbit is actually slightly eccentric) the velocity of the Moon in the orbit cannot be taken as the Moon’s linear velocity. The orbital velocity is a resultant between the Moon’s tangential velocity and the change in direction of velocity vector (acceleration) imposed on it by Earth’s gravity.
The orbital velocity is determined by a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. Furthermore, with a rigid body, it’s centre of mass is regarded as its reference point wrt velocity measurements. Therefore, each point touching the radial line from the near face, through the COM to the far face, is moving at the same angular velocity as the radial line.
A point on the far side touching the radial line is moving faster than a point on the near face and a point closer to the Earth is turning at an ever slower velocity. However, each point must complete the entire orbit at the same time…exactly.
What does that tell you? It means the variation in velocity of each point along the radial line is a consequence of that point being attached to the radial line. You are looking at the problem as if the different velocities are independent motions, as if they are independent particles. They are not, all particles on the Moon are constrained to move at the same angular velocity because they are part of a rigid body.
Calculating individual particle velocities has no meaning, For one, it can’t be done because no one can measure them. For another, there is no need. Each particle on the Moon completes an orbit in exactly 27+ days despite the fact they have individual velocities.
You can argue that a particle at the front end of the Moon crosses the finish line first, but that omits the reasoning that is started later from the designated starting point. A front particle and a back particle still take the same time to orbit, hence they have the same angular velocity.
If you are going to debate, do so on your own merit and refrain from butt-kissing to authority.
Gordon,
WHY are you lecturing me about the moon’s particles having the same angular velocity?????????????
Where did I EVER say it did not?
You have serious reading comprehension skills.
My POINT was that angular velocity is NOT an aspect of curvilinear translation, per EVERY kinematic resource and textbook you will find.
Gordon
Your contention was that an aspect of curvilinear translation is that:
“all the particles move at the same angular velocity.”
That is NOT true. Every kinematic reference will tell you that with curvilinear translations, all particle move at the same “VELOCITY”, as in linear velocity, NOT angular.
Particles of the moon move at the same ANGULAR velocity, so the moon is NOT exhibiting curvilinear translation.
So according to Gordon, “butt kissing” is accepting kinematic conventions and definitions that have been around for countless decades, perhaps hundreds of years.
Ball4 says:
bill, it is Tesla’s editor twisting words away from what Tesla shows in his wheel assembly example, not me. Go argue with the editor.
Or argue with commenters here by showing that Tesla makes a mistake in his wheel assembly example where Tesla demonstrates Earth’s moon (or ball on string) rotates once on its own internal axis through Tesla’s C per orbit of the external axis through Tesla’s O.
=================================
I don’t have a beef with the editor because it his article you are misinterpreting. You think the editor is saying the moon’s rotation can be divvied up into a translation and a rotation around the moon’s internal axis. But he isn’t saying that at all. He is just repeating the spinner claim.
Then Tesla does the math and shows:
”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.”
Fact is Ball4 the curvilinear translation is a) in possession of its own angular momentum; and b) of a concentric nature that it qualifies as its own rotation. Curvilinear translation are simply a larger class of curved motions than are rotations; Thus all rotations are a special class of curvilinear translations as they all involve particles in curvilinear translation in concentric motion around an axis. If the moon were considered a particle it would always be in rotation even if it had a second motion of rotating around its central internal axis. Likewise the earth is an object that is rotating around the COG of the sun and in possession of a second motion where it rotates around an internal axis.
What you want to do is try to call the moon two motions when one motion accounts for all the angular momentum possessed by the moon.
Adding a second motion of the moon rotating around its own internal axis would require a force no matter which direction you chose to rotate it. That force would be in addition to the angular momentum the moon currently possesses and not subtracted from it.
In the event of unfair behavior or corruption on the MTBOSS Safety Site, full compensation is provided. Check out ou MTBOSS for information on currency exchange mistakes on the Toto site! 먹튀 검증
That’s interesting! I will visit you often.
This article is so entertaining! I had a great time reading this, thanks for sharing a great article. Great work!
https://electrician-moorebank.com.au/
I hope many people see these things. I’m going to look very good! It has been a great help and I will visit often.
먹튀검증
먹튀검증 커뮤니티
I’ve seen some very helpful stuff. I found a lot of information, but your article was the most attractive and excellent. I will visit you often.
I enjoyed reading a good article. It was very helpful and gave me some good information.은꼴 I will visit you often.