The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2020 was +0.53 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the October, 2020 value of +0.54 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 +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.52 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. The tropical (20N-20S) temperature anomaly for November was +0.29 deg. C, which is lower than it has been in over 2 years.
In contrast, the Arctic saw the warmest November (1.38 deg. C) in the 42 year satellite record, exceeding the previous record of 1.22 deg. C in 1996.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 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 -0.03 +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
2020 11 +0.53 +0.67 +0.39 +0.29 +1.57 +1.38 +1.41
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 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
No more “moon’s axial rotation” argument, please. That has been definitively settled in the “Non-Spinner’s” favor, so it’s time to move on.
Debates aren’t settled by decree. The moon rotates about its axis. Why don’t you ask any astronomer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
David, is a wooden horse bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round rotating on its own axis, as it moves? Or is it merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round?
Correct answers are “no”, then “yes”.
I agree.
Which means the "moon on the left" in the gif David linked to, is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not rotating about its own center of mass. It is "orbiting", and not "rotating on its own axis".
That means the "moon on the right" in the gif David linked to, is rotating on its own axis, clock-wise, at the same rate that it is orbiting, counter-clockwise, so that it appears as though it is not rotating on its own axis. The two motions sort of visually cancel each other out.
As I’ve explained before, yes, it is rotating. You can see that because it faces all 360 degrees as it goes around the track. If it weren’t rotating it would face in the same direction throughout, the direction it started in.
It’s shown clearly in this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
It is impossible for an astronomical body not to rotate, unless its surface is perfectly smooth and its density is symmetric about some axis. Otherwise in a uniform gravitational field the body will experience a net torque, causing rotation.
Instead of your endless hand waving arguments, I dare you to write to the Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Association and ask him this question, and report his response back here.
It is as I explained above, at 3:07 PM. The “moon on the left” faces through 360 degrees because it is “orbiting”, and not “rotating on its own axis”. It is “only orbiting”. An object that is “only orbiting” keeps the same face always pointing towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.
David, you appear new to this issue. Unfortunately, like many others, you have an opinion, but no knowledge to the relevant physics. Without any knowledge, you go to wikipedia to support your opinion. (You’ve linked twice to the same wiki link, without any understanding of why the link is wrong.)
If you’re serious about getting educated, you must first learn the two motions DREMT mentioned– “orbiting” and “rotating about its own axis”.
If you prefer to offer your opinions, without understanding the science, we offer a free “idiot” test.
You’re wrong. Look at the moon on the left of the Wikipedia animation. IGNORE THE EARTH. IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE MOON IS ORBITING.
Just look at the Moon. Focus on its vertical axis, which is coming straight out of the page.
See the black section as it moves through 360 degrees?
That’s because the Moon is rotating. Just like a merry-go-round.
Orbiting is a completely separate motion that is unrelated to the presence of rotation or the lack of rotation. This is basic kinematics.
ClintR, I go to Wikipedia because it has the best animation that I’ve found that clearly illustrates the argument.
Orbiting and rotation are completely separate motions.
I made a physics-based argument above, about torques — why don’t you address that instead of slinging insults?
"That’s because the Moon is rotating."
Sure, it’s rotating…but not on its own axis. It’s rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle. It is not rotating about its own center of mass. Same as the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
It is "orbiting", and not "rotating on its own axis". You’ll get there.
David, you’re still confused by the wiki graphics. You don’t understand the two motions.
Pure orbital motion is demonstrated by you walking CCW around a tree. Your left side will always face the tree. You are NOT rotating about your own axis. You are “orbiting” around the tree.
If you understand that one motion, then you will realize that is Moon’s motion. It always keeps one side facing the center of its orbit.
And gravity does NOT produce a torque on Moon. But that’s a separate issue, after you understand orbital motion.
DREMT:
Again, IGNORE THE EARTH, the white circle.
Focus solely on the Moon. Ignore its motion around the white circle. It’s a completely separate motion that can be subtracted out.
The dark patch is circling the Moon’s axis. Because the Moon is rotating.
If it helps, imagine a coordinate system centered on the Moon’s axis. That’s what we do on Earth, after all.
As I said, David, yes, the moon is rotating…but not on its own axis. You cannot center your coordinate system on the center of mass of the moon…that is precisely what leads you astray. Center it on the middle of the white circle, instead. The moon is rotating about an axis in the center of that white circle, and not about its own center of mass. The moon is “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its own axis”.
DREMT the Master Baiter strikes again. Successfully polluting another thread with the same tired, oh so tired, arguments.
ClintR, explain why gravity doesn’t exert a torque on a nonsymmetric astronomical body (not a point body).
David, before you go down the “torque” trail, do you now understand orbital motion? Do you understand that a ball on a string, swung around in a circle, is a model of orbiting?
ClintR, here is how you orbit the tree without rotating.
Image the usual coordinate system around the tree, with tree at the center. North, South, East and West (NSEW)
Face N the entire time.
Start to the right. Walk curved, a little N and a little W. After 90 deg youre facing N but walking sideways to the west.
Keep going, backwards and sideways now. After 180 deg youre walking purely backwards. Still facing north.
After 270 deg youre facing north, walking sideways to the east.
You walk curved again, back to your original position. Facing north still.
This is orbiting the tree without rotating.
ClintR – Don’t patronize me.
DREMT wrote:
You cannot center your coordinate system on the center of mass of the moon
I can put my coordinate system anywhere I damn well please!
Seriously, this is Minute 5 of Day 1 of Baby Physics 101.o
Now answer the question, focusing on the Moon’s axis, ignoring the white circle completely.
See David, there’s your problem. You don’t understand orbital motion. No one but an idiot would walk around a tree that way.
And, that’s not patronizing you. That’s bringing reality to you.
DREMT wrote:
Center it on the middle of the white circle, instead. The moon is rotating about an axis in the center of that white circle, and not about its own center of mass. The moon is “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its own axis”.
The Moon is orbiting around TWO axes of rotation.
Not a problem at all.
This is the very essence of your error — you don’t seem to understand the motions are separate and the two rotations are independent. Two axes of rotation.
Sure, you can center your coordinate system there if you like…but then you lose the correct context in which to understand that the moon is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not on its own axis.
You have to be able to correctly separate the two motions – “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. The moon is only orbiting. The Earth is both orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
No one but an idiot would walk around a tree that way.
You sure do evade debate.
Someone could certainly walk around a tree like that.
So address the situation — that’s orbiting without rotation, right?
DREMT, there is no “correct” context.
The result is the same in all coordinate systems, e.g. in all contextes.
Again, you do not seem to understand there are two axes of rotation in the Wiki animation on the left.
On the right animation, there is only one.
The moon is only orbiting.
If the Moon is only orbiting, why is that black patch spinning around the Moon’s polar axis?
Wrong way round, David. There are two axes of rotation in the Wiki animation on the right, and only one axis of rotation in the animation on the left.
No David. Your ridiculous way of walking around a tree has two motions. You are both orbiting and rotating about your axis.
A simple way to understand is to walk around the tree as a normal person would. Not as someone trying to confuse the issue. Walk CCW around the tree so that your left side is always facing the tree. THAT is orbiting but NOT rotating about your axis.
If someone is so uninformed they still deny that simple motion, tie one end of a rope to the tree. Then hold the other end of the rope in your left hand. Walk (as a normal person) CCW around the tree. The rope does not wrap around you, because you are NOT rotating about your axis.
Now, walk around the tree as an idiot would, always facing north. Notice the rope wraps around you because you are both orbiting AND rotating about your axis.
Are you going to accept reality, or reject it?
ClintR says:
Your ridiculous way of walking around a tree has two motions. You are both orbiting and rotating about your axis.
Where is the second axis of rotation?
DREMT wrote:
There are two axes of rotation in the Wiki animation on the right
Specify them.
One in the center of the white circle, one through the center of mass of the moon.
By the way – you are David App.ell. Right?
DREMT wrote:
One in the center of the white circle, one through the center of mass of the moon.
If the second axes of rotation is the Moon’s center (in the Wiki animation to the right), why isn’t the dark patch moving around it?
Instead it always faces in the same direction. Someone standing on it would always see the same few stars.
Like you, I prefer to remain anonymous.
Did you write the Exec Officer of AAS yet?
I already explained that here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-561673
In the way an idiot would walk around a tree, the axis of rotation about his axis is the vertical line though his center of mass. The axis of the orbital motion is the tree.
David, if you want to reject reality, just admit it. We’re happy to add your name to the list, as several are now avoiding the issue, for obvious reasons.
Sorry, I’m not going back to read previous links.
My questions are simple. You can answer them here as asked, or copy and paste your answer from before.
ClintR, explain how the walker is rotating around the vertical axis through her center of mass if she’s always facing the same direction.
Insults are a sign of insecurity.
Click on the link, App.ell.
You’re just repeating old, already disproven arguments. While avoiding new questions.
I gather you do a lot of that here. It’s typical of deniers, of whatever ilk.
ClintR, what happened to the torque argument?
(It’s a real winner.)
David, the person doing the idiot walk around the tree is YOU. Unless you are a female, or worse.
But to answer your question — There are two motions involved in the idiot walk.
BTW, you never answered my question:
Do you understand that a ball on a string, swung around in a circle, is a model of orbiting?
Can’t believe this argument is still going on here. Forget it David. It is futile. They do not understand.
So you agree with David that there are two axes of rotation in the left-hand gif!? If so you also do not understand rotation. There is only one axis of rotation in the left-hand gif, right in the center of the white circle. That is what an object rotating about an external axis looks like. See Fig. 2(b) in the below:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
The plate is moving like the left-hand gif, with all its particles moving in concentric circles. The plate also has only one axis of rotation, going through point O.
The plate is “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis”.
Where is David? He seemed so sure of himself yesterday.
I find this polarized topic fascinating.
It amazes me that something so simple can be impossible to resolve and entrenched positions can be codified.
The horse on a merry-go-round and tree analogies would seem to suffice to put to rest the argument and yet the idea that the moon is spinning about its axis still persists.
I would offer this perspective. Instead of the moon/earth (where axis are parallel), replace the orbiting object with a spinning top where the axis is perpendicular to the orbital path. Assume the sides of the top are wide enough to see the colors and that the top makes one rotation about its axis for each full orbital distance.
Like the one in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysXvxiDWp64
The axis is always pointing to the center of the orbit, but the top is rotating about its own axis so the colors as seen from the ground are always moving and the spinning top is always flat since it orbit is perpendicular to the ground.
The top is clearly rotating (spinning) around an axis that points to the center of the earth.
Is the top rotating? Yes
Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes
But the key question becomes, is its perpendicular axis rotating about itself?
If the answer is yes, then if the top remained stationary (its orbital motion stopped), a person should see the bottom, the side, and the top (side pointing away) at some point. Instead, you would just see the bottom and the colors rotating in a stationary position.
Now, leaving all things the same, turn the axis 90 degrees so the axis points in the direction of the orbit. From the ground, you see the side of the top. You see the side changing colors since the axis is following the orbital path, and it is rotating relative to the ground. Again, the questions become
Is the top rotating? Yes
Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes
But is its parallel axis pointing along the orbital path rotating about itself?
If we stop its orbital path we would see it spinning on its side but the axis pointing down the orbital path would not be spinning about itself. If it were, we would again see the bottom, the side, then the top like a baton flipping.
Lastly, we change the axis to be perpendicular to the orbital path, but parallel to the ground (like the moon). The view from the ground would be similar to when the axis is traveling along the orbital path (but its orientation would change by 90 degrees from the ground).
Is the top rotating? Yes
Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes
But is its perpendicular axis following the orbital path rotating about itself?
If we stop its orbital path we would see it spinning on its side but the parallel axis to the orbital path would not be spinning about itself.
Revisiting the speed of the axial rotation of the top, a person on the ground would see all the colors if the orbital motion was stopped as well as if it continued.
The only way to ensure the same side color was facing the ground would be to stop the top rotational motion (spinning of the top).
In each scenario, the only change is the orientation of the axis for the spinning top. The orbital motion and rotation about an axis never changes.
If somehow new motions are introduced in the 3rd scenario, then uniformity of motion is arbitrary based on orientation of the axis.
Yes ftop_t, if Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
The reason the idiots have fought this so long is that they must defend their cult. If all of the “science” institutions believe in, and tout, such nonsense, then what happens to the rest of their false religion? If the “Moon rotation” nonsense goes away, what happens to the AGW nonsense?
That’s why some of the rats have already deserted the sinking ship.
ClintR says:
David, the person doing the idiot walk around the tree is YOU.
ClintR, since you are unable to debate civilly and scientifically, I’m done with you.
PS: the Moon isn’t attached to a rope.
ClintR says:
Yes ftop_t, if Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Not true for tidal locking.
Go learn the physics instead of repeatedly showing your ignorance.
Or ask any astronomer in the world. I dare you.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
There is only one axis of rotation in the left-hand gif, right in the center of the white circle.
You are just wrong and there’s no other way to say it.
That’s crystal clear. Everyone here knows it.
I conclude you are being wrong on purpose just to stir up a debate. The situation is so simple a child can see it, and there’s no other explanation for your continued obstinacy.
That, and trying to claim the debate is over, clearly indicate you are nothing but a troll of the highest order.
You know the correct answer here. I guess you’ve gotten some laughs. Strange way to get your jollies, but, in the end, I hope it makes you some kind of happy, even if I can’t imagine it.
Cheers.
David returns!
But, he is still unable to answer simple questions. I have answered his. But he can’t answer mine.
It’s almost like he’s a typical troll….
This zombie argument will never die.
A new zombie , or possibly just another sock puppet has joined the fray and they think have found a new victim who fortunately knows more than enough to see through the b.s..
The zombies at least admit the merry-go-round was just an analogy.
There are at least two distinct types of analogies, useful and useless.
For examples of useless and misleading , see “false analogy fallacy” .
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html
and as applied to the merry-go-roun analogy for the Moon’s motion see –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561751
ClintR wrote:
Do you understand that a ball on a string, swung around in a circle, is a model of orbiting?
Astronomical bodies aren’t attached to strings.
Now, about that torque argument?
ftop_t says:
I find this polarized topic fascinating.
It amazes me that something so simple can be impossible to resolve and entrenched positions can be codified.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken.
This issue is not at all “impossible” to resolve. It’s quite easy to resolve, and was hundreds of years ago. The science is very easy to understand.
What you have are smart people who understand this, and a few people who desire to be trolls for the sake of creating argument for the sake of argument. That’s all they are doing. (Well, DREMT clearly is. ClintR, I believe, is genuinely ignorant and does wish to learn.)
DREMT is an agent of Dr Spencer, or he clearly would have been banned by now. Because far better people have been banned for far less. Not sure what game Roy is playing here, but there it is.
CORRECTION: ClintR clearly does *NOT* wish to learn….
David is just upset, because he was banned.
This link demonstrates rotational motion and even provides an interactive tool where you can visualize rotation around an axis.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
With rotational motion, there is one (1) axis.
If the axis of rotation is within the object, the rotation is about its own axis.
If the axis of rotation is external, the rotation is around some fixed external point.
Select the rectangle and use these values
Angle = 360 degrees
X = 40
Y -20
The rectangle rotates around its center axis
Now, change the x value to -80 which is a rotation point outside the shape
The rectangle rotates around the external axis with the same side of the rectangle always facing the axis point
There are not two (2) rotational axis. Only one that is either inside the shape or outside the shape.
To prove there are not two (2) axis of rotation, reset the values but change the Angle to 90 degrees
Angle = 90 degrees
X = 40
Y -20
Now move the axis back outside the object and again rotate 90 degrees
Angle = 90 degrees
X = -80
Y -20
After rotating 90 about the rectangles internal axis and a similar rotation about the external axis; a new side (length of the rectangle) faces the external axis.
There is only one axis for the moon. It is rotating about an external axis (earth).
“The moon rotates about its axis”
Yep, just like a ball at the end of a piece of string. 😉
The Moon isn’t attached to a string.
“Settled, lets move on”
What a Trollish move!
DREMT: Im just posting to let you know that the debate is over. And I won.
D fashions himself moderator, referee, and on the winning team!
So sorry, you have a conflict of interest, and no credibility.
Don’t feed the idiot anti-science troll.
I wasn’t planning to.
You didn’t need to plan: you are yourself one of these idiot anti-science trolls.
J.-P. D.
Nah, I’m good.
Misconception
The Moon does not rotate.
Reality
The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around the Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then all sides of the Moon would spend some time facing Earth.
Copied from:
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
Yes, they’re wrong. If the moon were rotating on its own axis, at any rate and in either direction relative to the orbit, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
I think it is a good sign that DREM wants to move on now that he realises that he has been routed (or as we say around these parts “totally rooted”).
It turns out that essentially his primary arguments are just another example of the “false analogy fallacy”. For further details see –
https://tinyurl.com/y4gdezqt
Sorry for your loss.
Dr Roy’s Emergency Mad Troll (zombie division) starts the new month off with a unilateral declaration that he has won and thinks debate should now stop! This is clearly guaranteed to ignite further debate, rather than encouraging it to cease.
Anyway it is a magnificent example of a troll at work. A bit of a textbook play from the “Advanced Trolling for Idiots” manual.
“Sorry for your loss.”, Also from the manual.
As usual, people just cannot stop responding to me.
Praise be the Lord! DREM finally raises something relevant.
It is a good question as to why I or anyone else bothers to respond to you.
Perhaps, despite the repetive boring nature, it is a subliminal desire for you to continue your rampage through the comments section. The amount of collateral damage you do to the climate change denial community is a joy to behold. Witness the current attempts by those across the ideological divide (SkepticGoneWild, Eben etc..) to restrain you.
I don’t think they will have any better luck as your ego driven desire to never admit to losing ( who does that remind* one of ?) always gets in the way.
* http://www.loser.com
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Trying to get your PST quota up.
DREM, you have been rather slack with your PST trolling lately.
Not like you. Too busy dreaming up false analogy fallacies, perhaps or just depressed by the scale of your losses.
Maybe demand a recount.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
I need to make you aware that obsessive compulsive disorders are a significant indicators of depression. Rather than posting the same comment over and over, maybe you should be addressing the fundamentals.
In this case, one of the many fundamentals is your lack of a sensible response to your , soon to become famous, fallacious analogy regarding wooden horses and the Moon. I think you need to change tack.
Accordingly you might it useful to formulate a response other than ‘see he doesn’t understand’ ( I suspect very, very few do) or link back to some previous comment that has already been thoroughly debunked.
Looking forward to a change in approach as a continuation of your PSTs would indicate that you have learnt nothing and you remain in a state of depression.
Cheer up you and hopefully you will eventually transition from denial to acceptance.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Keep trying but your repetition is not helping your case and just reinforces everyones impression of you.
Even Donald Trump will eventually realise he is a total loser when he is dragged kicking and screaming from his current domicile.
Maybe someone in your family can drag you away from the keyboard. It will be for your own good.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM, aren’t you sick and tired of being ridiculed for your behaviour?
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Clearly not.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM, I think your intellectually unimaginative * comments are wearying so I will terminate this exchange and do something much more useful than monotonously engaging with a troll.
It is a Covid free start to summer down under so I am going out to enjoy the sunshine. I gather things are grimmer where you are so maybe it is best you stick to your keyboard. Take care.
* this is the man who claims he is much more imaginative than the brainwashed members of the physics and the astronomy community!
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
“As usual, people just cannot stop responding to me” from Justifying Your Existence – Chapter 2 of the manual.
Seems like you wrote the manual, MikeR.
Nah, just checked the content of the Wiki on Internet Trolls.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Roy puts up with DREMT’s obvious and obnoxious trolling because he and Roy are in cahoots.
*WHY* is a much more interesting question than responses about the Moon. What is Roy getting out of this??
No David, I am almost certain that Dr Spencer would have banned DREMT if he could have. I can’t imagine that Roy, who I am sure values his reputation as a scientist, enjoys having crackpots running amok on his web site.
Roy has tended, in the past, to ban vexatious commenters via keywords. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team has avoided this fate by judicious use of a pseudonym that makes banning via the keyword approach difficult, if not impossible.
Anyway that’s about the only reason I can think of why Dr Roy hasn’t banned him. If anyone has any other suggestions as to why DREMT hasn’t met the same fate as his predecessors, I am all ears.
p.s. because, DREMT is so annoying I think he performs one useful service. That is to trash the climate change denial movement.
David, MikeR, please stop trolling.
” That has been definitively settled in the Non-Spinners favor, so its time to move on. ”
Certainly it hasn’t.
See for example Tobias Mayer’s ‘Treatise on Moon’s rotation about its axis’, published in 1750, unfortunately in old German:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
I read the entire document and when I have time to do, I’ll write here a comment about the work of this great guy, who was not only an outstanding astronomer and mathematician, but a smart engineer as well.
Your problem, as well as that of all the other moon spin deniers who endlessly post their prepubescent, unscientific nonsense on this blog: you won’t accept Mayer’s results (e.g. due to ‘appeal to authority’ and the like).
Doesn’t matter! Other, more intelligent people will understand AND appreciate what Mayer did. THAT matters in fine, DREMT.
J.-P. D.
Sorry for your loss.
Likewise we* are disappointed by your lack of insightwith respect to your inability to control the worst aspects of your troll like behaviour.
*I am sure Bindidon will let everyone know if he disagrees with the above.
OK, MikeR.
Good that we are on the same page.
Yes, the page of endless, pointless empty trash talk.
You said it, not me.
Said what?
DREM,”said what?”
DREM you appear to have the memory span of a severely demented gold fish. See above.
Any way my trash talking is far from empty. Your’s definitely needs to improve as your PST trash has been running on empty from day one.
Let’s see some improvement. Over to DREM now to see if he can improve his PSTing.
Shhhhhhh.
Oh well, DREM seems to have expired, maybe? Hard to tell.
MikeR, your ship has sunk.
You have been exposed as a fraud.
Please stop trolling.
Clint,
Is DREM OK?
From the sounds of his “Shhhhhh”, it sounded like his tires had suddenly deflated.
MikeR, please become obsessed with somebody else.
DREM,
Good to see you are OK.
I was a bit worried for a moment as Zombies are a bit of a passion of mine, particularly Zombies that create havoc for the climate change denier community.
Keep up the good work.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
You are aware that the moon’s axis is not perpendicular to its orbit, which is why over time we can see 59% of the moon’s surface from earth? Show me a merry go round that does that!
Yes, very aware, thank you. The analogies have limits. They are only intended to get across a very simple, fundamental point about rotation around an axis that is external to the body in question.
So… if the moon’s axis of rotation is not perpendicular to it’s orbit around the earth, then it’s axis of rotation can’t be around the earth. Now that seems like a very simple, fundamental point!
The moon has no axis of rotation going through its body. Since astronomers believe the moon rotates about its center of mass, they think otherwise. Therefore it is no surprise that they have identified where exactly they think this axis is located. Based on the way the moon moves in its orbit, they think it is tilted 6.7 degrees from the lunar orbital plane.
“they think it is tilted 6.7 degrees from the lunar orbital plane.”
lol what exactly is it that is tilted???
So yes, the moon and earth ‘rotate’ about their common center of mass (which by the way is located a small distance from the earth’s surface), which we refer to as orbiting, which you seem to confuse with axis of rotation.
Since your so fond of analogies, what do you think of ‘Nero fiddled while Rome burned’ for todays current climate response?
If the moon were actually rotating about its center of mass, we would see all sides of it from Earth. The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, which as you say is a motion commonly referred to as “orbiting”.
The Earth is both rotating about its own center of mass, and>/b> “orbiting”. The moon is just “orbiting”.
You’ll get there.
MD got you there DREMT. Its a simple fundamental point.
“The moon has no axis of rotation going through its body.”
as discussed many times, this model simply doesnt agree with the well replicated observations.
We have your model, we have observations. What to do next is a fundamental question.
We can:
a. Keep the model. Deny the observations.
b. Change the model to account for the observations.
Science has no choice but b.
Religion is allowed to choose a.
DREMT chooses a. Therefore DREMTs model is religion not science.
And by denying observable facts, he has, for the 47th time, offically lost the debate.
Made a bit of a mess of the formatting there:
If the moon were actually rotating about its center of mass, we would see all sides of it from Earth. The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, which as you say is a motion commonly referred to as “orbiting”.
The Earth is both rotating about its own center of mass, and “orbiting”. The moon is just “orbiting”.
You’ll get there.
“If the moon were actually rotating about its center of mass, we :
would see all sides of it from Earth. ”
Obviously not.
As Newton explained, the Moon is simply rotating on its (tilted) axis in the same period as its orbit. Just not that difficult to understand.
HA! DREMT has evolved. Now he admits the analogies are worthless. But he wants us to accept them anyway. Very strange.
Absolutely detest fake analogies, irrespective of how simple they are.
With regards to the saying, “to a simpleton everything appears simple”. DREM thinks the moons motion is simple. Ergo ….
Here, MD. I get bored repeating myself, so here is a link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
DREM, yes you are indeed boring. We have been through this so many times*.
An analogy can be useful or alternatively useless and misleading , see “false analogy fallacy” . For examples –
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html
and applied to the merry-go-round/Moon analogy –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561751
* it is amazing how many times DREM will be debunked and he will just brazenly ressurect the same old nonsense for a new audience.
My link debunks your link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462
Also, see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537818
DREM,
My dog has no nose. How does he smell?
Answer:Awful.
Question: DREM has no brains, how does he think?
Answer: Terribly.
There’s an analogy for you DREM.
Likewise your analogy of the wooden horses on a merry-go-around with the Moon’s orbital motion absolutely stinks to high heaven.
The two have just one thing in common, a body (or bodies) that show the same face to the centre.
In contrast they have four things that are definitely and substantively not in common. These are –
1. the Moon, unlike the horses on merry go around, is not physically connected to the centre of rotation (i.e. the Earth) with either a string , spokes or any other mechanical constraint that we know of.
2. The Earth does not rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Moon orbits . In contrast the entire platform of the merry-go-round, and the motor that drives it, plus the attached horses, unsurprisingly always rotates at the same speed.
3. The Moon orbits in an elliptical path. This contrasts with the constrained circular motion of the rigid body of the merry-go-round.
4. As a consequence of its elliptical orbit, the Moon orbits more rapidly at perigee than at apogee (see Kepler’s Laws of orbital motion). The merry-go-around would disintegrate if any part decided to rotate at a different rate at any to its neighbours at any time ( alsk see point 2 above).
This ridiculous analogy therefore fits the key criteria for being a “false analogy fallacy*” and needs to be consigned to the nearest dustbin or shredder.
* see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy
So your strategy is to just keep repeating yourself until you have the last word? You already have responses to what you are saying. You had them before you wrote it all out again.
No DREM , this has been a long running saga, spanning several years and there appears to be some new protagonists for this month’s edition that might need to be brought up to speed.
Rather than ploughing through thousand of comments, I thought it might be useful precis some of the most salient points (there are many more – see below*).
Accordingly you should do likewise to do justice to the strengths of your argument. Why not Let the court of public opinion adjudicate the merits of your arguments?😅
* even if we accept DREM’s analogy that the Earth and the Moon can be considered to be embedded in a rigid disk (or maybe supported by elephants and turtles) then the Moon still rotates on its axis with respect to the inertial sidereal reference frame.
Again for those new to the debate the following might be of some utility regarding this latter point.
1. For an elliptically orbiting and rotating moon, including longitudinal libration curve –
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
2. For an elliptically orbiting non rotating moon –
https://i.postimg.cc/0yWN667H/No-Rotation-Ellipse-Eccentricity-0.gif
3. For a moon with the orbital parameters corresponding to the Earth ‘s Moon, including longitudinal libration curve –
https://i.postimg.cc/SRBsxH8Q/Ellipse-Moon-Eccenricity-0.gif
OK, MikeR.
DREM,
I am glad you have taken up the challenge to reveal the full extent of your arguments. 😂
Do you have anything further to add? Your traditional farewell of a burst of PSTs* perhaps?
* this is a reliable sign that DREM has forfeited the debate. Any repetition just reinforces the message.
Odd.
Yes you are extremely odd.
Actually, I’m extremely even.
What ever you say DREM. You are just another even tempered stable genius. A legend in your own mind.
Don’t you wish that Newton, that other genius, had access to your advice about the motion of the Moon.
Considering the apocryphal story about the insights Newton obtained from a falling apple, then the whole of Physics could have gone down a different path, if only Newton had access to a merry-go-around.
Ah the vicissitudes of history.
p.s. by the way DREM do you have anything more to add to bolster your wonderful wooden horse analogy other than that outlined in the 2 links you provided above?
Wow, those simple analogies really bother them.
Yes DREM, Newton is rotating on his axis in his grave as we speak.
Any sudden inspiring insights regarding your analogy? Don’t hold back. The world awaits holding its collective breath.
Why do you keep calling me “DREM”, without the “T”?
Saves on space. The team suffix was superfluous any way as you seem to be have been abandoned by almost all, other than sock puppets that mysteriously appear from time to time.
In what way have I been abandoned? By whom? What sock puppets? What are you talking about!?
DREM,
ClintR only puts in an occasional perfunctory appearance. Bill has gone off on some tangent and Gordon always has his own unique trajectory.
So snowflake, essentially Y.O.Y.O. except for the rumoured sock puppets (could the spontaneous appearance of ftop_t be another one?).
You’re so weird.
DREM, your so vain, you think this blog commentary is all about you.
However, what is really very weird is your incessant masochistic desire to be lampooned, but cool, whatever rocks your boat.
Try becoming obsessed with someone else. Just try it! Give it a go. I see you at least managed to write one other comment, to somebody else, this month. That’s a start.
No need to get paranoid DREM.
As you are the most prolific purveyor of misinformation then it is natural that you get to be lampooned most prolifically. Anway you seem to thrive on the attention and I get to enjoy the spectacle of the collateral damage you do to the reputation of the climate change deniers. A bit of a win/win for both of us. Keep up with the good work.
Accordingly think we need to get you back on track as you tend to get easily distracted.
DREM, have you managed to think of another reason why your favourite wooden horse analogy is appropriate with regard to the Moon’s motion? We still have only one aspect where it is similar while we have four that make the analogy as stupid as it has always been. See –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-563368
Stalk somebody else.
DREM,
I think I have seen you use this exit strategy before when you can’t cope with the debate.
However if you are indeed that delusionally paranoid that you think people are stalking you, then you can just simply change your pseudonym or take your comments elsewhere.
I think this was the advice I gave you last time you tried this tactic.
So why not give it a go this time. Start afresh and pretend none of this happened.
Just a suggestion and have a nice day.😀
There is no debate to exit, I gave you the links to the responses ages ago. Since then you have just been doing your usual trash talk and nonsense, because you cannot get over your obsession. Move on to somebody else.
Ok DREM,
As you could be on the way to another of your meltdowns and as you have done sufficient damage to the climate denial community, I am happy to terminate this particular exchange.
As a parting gift I will refer to an extract from one of your seminal links that you posted above which neatly summarises your position.
“That isnt the point of the analogies. The point is to recognize that the motion of the moon is similar to that of an object that physically cannot rotate on its own axis.”
Yes DREM it is vaguely similar, in one respect only (very vaguely similar as horses on a MGR cannot librate). In every other respect it is totally different .
This is exactly why this piece of nonsense is a brilliant example of a false analogy fallacy.
In your defence you do concede the inherent weakness of your position by acknowledging some of the differences, but you plough on regardless recycling the same bull shit, over and over,
To finish off this thread ( trigger warning for sensitve snowflakes – trash* talk follows) with a similar analogy to the above, this time between DREM and a companion of mine.
My cat has a nose, DREM has a nose, therefore DREM is a cat ( apparently there are intellectual and behavioural similarities as well),
Of course, this is also clearly a false analogy, as among the many differences, my cat cannot use a keyboard and doesn’t think he is being stalked ( he is more of a stalker than a stalkee) .
Bye DREM and take care.
* one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
They really hate the simple analogies.
I absolutely detest fake analogies, irrespective of how simple they are.
With regards to the saying, “to a simpleton everything appears simple”. DREM thinks the moons motion is simple. Ergo ….
Must be because they so effortlessly get the point across to people. They despise anything that brings clarity to the debate, and long to obfuscate the issue.
Yes your simple analogy would be effortlessly illuminating if the analogy wasn’t simply wrong, for the 4 reasons described above!
Actually make it 5 reasons, as the non rotating moon doesn’t even get the correct coverage of the Moon visible from the Earth!!
So in reality there is not even one aspect of your analogy that is correct.
Seems to be helping people understand though, MikeR…so it can’t be all bad.
DREM, yes you may have misled a few gullibles but most people have enough insight to see through your crap.
Accordingly , I am happy to see you continue on your mission to obliterate the credibility of the climate change denial community. Keep up the good work
If you genuinely thought that was the case, you actually would leave me to it!
No DREM, heaven forbid.
Don’t let my criticisms discourage you. I am just adding them as a counterpoint to emphasise the “magnificence” of your argument by simple analogy.
See? He responded.
And he will again, no doubt.
But of course, mon petit chou. As lunar night follows lunar day this exchange will continue indefinitely until one of us tires.*
Over to you now DREM.
* Nearly always myself as the law of diminishing returns comes in to play with regard to the damage and havoc you create for the deniers.
Blah, blah, blah.
Finally after all this debate we get a comment of intellectual profundity from DREM.
Perhaps even more profound than a PST.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
DREM’s consistent intellectual approach is, as always, via argumentum ad nauseum. Accordingly last comment wins , no matter how inane or how many blahs.
Off on your victory lap. Don’t forget to rotate on your axis at the corners. Your destructive efforts may still be required. 🙃🙂
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I think we have found the essence of your argument.
Yes, the essence of MikeR’s “argument” is: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It’s just endless trash talk.
Is my tinnitus playing up? Do I hear the sound of whimpering? Maybe it’s a canine running away with it’s tail between its legs?
Perhaps it’s just DREM totally lost in a musically induced bewildered trance – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blah_Blah_Blah_(Armin_van_Buuren_song) or perhaps it’s all the above.
Sorry DREM , I just had to satisfy your insatiable desire to be on the receiving end of some trash talk. More to follow if you like.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
DREM why don’t do something more creative than increasing one blah at a time. Show that you are indeed a thinker not bound by the usual conventions of rational thought*.
Why don’t you surprise everyone with a Fibonacci sequence.
* the only innovative thought DREM has ever had (extrapolating backwards in time to include his previous incarnations) originated in the depths of DREM’s ileum, traversed his cecum and emerged via his back passage.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Ah, the Fibonacci sequence was too difficult for DREM.
Back to the old trusty PSTs. Who would have thought?
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html
#3
Please stop trolling.
DREM,
Why don’t we continue our discussion about analogies for the Moon’s orbital motion?
I have nothing more to say, and no desire to talk to you.
What a shame. I am distraught.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
“And yet it moves” …
I’m a newbie here. Maybe someone in the past has used similar explanation to mine below, but I did not have the opportunity and ability to read everything previously written on this topic (many more discussions here and elsewhere), so maybe you know it already.
Consider the Earth-Sun case:
Our Earth rotates around its own axis and at the same time orbits the Sun, you (probably) agree with that.
And the case of Moon-Earth:
Our Moon rotates around its own axis and at the same time orbits the Earth, but you (strongly) disagree with that.
Why? Both cases are generally qualitatively identical physical situations, ie a symmetrical relationship between them, with one general explanatory approach and uniform terminology. No need for distinctive redundant terminology, no need to binary distinguish between rotates/does not rotate.
The two cases mentioned above, ie Earth-Sun vs Moon-Earth, are qualitatively the same, only quantitatively different in relation to the number of sidereal vs synodic axial rotations of aorbiting (to a central) body.
One sidereal day on Earth (i.e. a full 360° rotation around its own axis relative to a very distant star/galaxy – we need to neglect the annual parallax) lasts 23 hours and about 56 minutes. Not exactly 24 hours, because it is the time of the Earth’s complete rotation around its own axis for the observer from the Sun. This so-called the synodic day is slightly longer than the sidereal day because the earth needs almost another 4 minutes to turn at an angle to show the sun “the same face as yesterday”. (For simplicity, we assume a circular and neglect the real elliptical orbit of the Earth and the unevenness of the orbital and angular velocity of the Earth during the year and the resulting need to introduce so-called mean solar time; details can be found on the Internet or in the literature).
Thus, during time required for 365 synodic revolutions of the Earth, the Earth will make 366 sidereal revolutions (4 min * 365 = 1460 min =~ 1440 min = 1 mean solar day).
So far, I hope everything is clear, we are following a quantitatively simplified model, but qualitatively correct. We will now do a thought experiment and try to approach both the Earth-Sun and Moon-Earth cases to see a direct physical analogy.
Suppose that the Earth rotates around its axis much more slowly, so that one turn around its axis (relative to a distant star) corresponds to a half of its annual orbit around the Sun. In this case, the Earth will make one complete turn around its axis to a distant star in one half year, but this corresponds to exactly half a turn relative to the Sun and an observer from the Sun sees the opposite face of the Earth than seen by half year ago (please draw this situation on paper, it’s very simple ). In one year (completing its orbit around the Sun), the Earth will turn twice relative to the stars but only once relative to the Sun! But the same relationship between the number of sidereal vs synodic revolutions applies here as in the real case (366 vs 365): The number of sidereal revolutions around its own axis is exactly one greater than the number of synodic revolutions around its own axis in a period of one complete year.
And now, as you can guess, the finale is coming. Our Moon orbiting the Earth has such a special feature that its sidereal rotation lasts exactly as long as its orbital period. This empiric fact has its own physical causes that we won’t mention now. It didn’t have to be that way, and in some ancient past it really wasn’t – the moon rotated at a faster speed and showed the Earth periodically all its faces round and round (it periodically shows slightly different faces during its orbit even now – see lunar libration and its causes mentioned elsewhere). But the general relationship between the number of sidereal and synodic turns is the same: the number of sidereal turns is exactly one more than the number of synodic turns. Specifically, for the Moon, it will make exactly one (1 as a number) sidereal rotation about its axis with respect to the system defined by distant static stars during one orbital period around the Earth. And in the same time he makes no (0 as a number = sidereal minus 1) synodic turn towards the observer on Earth, which means that he still sees the same face of the Moon (neglecting libration), although differently illuminated depending on the relative position of the light source, that is the Sun.
Q.E.D.
(and I apologize for my English, maybe somewhere not used as a native speaker, because I’m not)
The problem lies in "sidereal rotation" – i.e. defining axial rotation as relative "to a distant star".
It all comes down to how you describe "orbital motion without axial rotation". How do you describe an object that is orbiting another body, whilst it is not rotating on its own axis? My guess is, that you would describe it as keeping one face always oriented towards the same distant star, whilst it moves, correct?
Well, motion like that is not rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis always keeps the same face oriented towards that axis, whilst it moves. We established that, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-562394
…and orbiting, or revolution, is just another word for a rotation about an external axis.
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, by definition, “orbital motion without axial rotation” should be described as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout. In which case, the moon is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis, and the Earth is orbiting and rotating 365.25 times on its own axis, per orbit.
As for the “problem of definition”, atronomy, theoretical, and practical astronautics do not recognize such ambiguities.
Synchronous rotation like the Moon in the Earth’s orbit is not possible without own axial rotation with respect to inertial reference system (ie static stars). An illustrative example is the International Space Station. The ISS is mostly oriented in the LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) reference frame, which means its “bottom” side always facing the Earth and the “top” side into the open space, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aF7zwhlDDU
This is a perfect demonstration of synchronous rotation in the low Earth orbit. The actual rotation of the ISS is maintained against disturbing external factors, controlled or changed as needed by actuators such as gyroscopes and thrusters. Actuators are able to stop or start the rotation of the whole satellite with the required angular velocity around the respective axis by generating the required torque.
Most operational remote sensing, mapping and meteorological satellites work in the same mode on polar orbits.
And of course, geostationary satellites operate in a similar way, they have both synchronized rotation and synchronized orbit above some point of the Earth’s equator. The Moon is physically just another satellite of Earth of natural origin with synchronized rotation in its own orbit at a distance about 10 times further than artificial geostationary satellites.
Yes, the ISS is also mostly orbiting without rotating on its own axis.
And some other practical implications: If the artificial satellite/vehicle is operating in orbit in synchronous rotation mode, the angular rate of rotation of the vehicle must also be changed when the change of height of the operating orbit is required. This is done by means of actuators and by generating a torque with respect to the axis of rotation.
At low orbits, this rotational speed is relatively high, so resulting centrifugal forces contribute to the microgravity factors.
Sure, if it is not rotating on its own axis and then starts rotating on its own axis, for whatever reason, you need something in place to correct for that.
You can visualize that DREMT is correct.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564308
JK says:
“the angular rate of rotation of the vehicle must also be changed when the change of height of the operating orbit is required.”
DREM and sockpuppet, how does that agree with your auto-turning cannonball?
Svante, try to understand that for a vehicle that is orbiting without axial rotation as you see it (i.e. something like the Hubble Telescope) it still needs to adjust itself in order to remain orbiting like that.
And ftop_t is not a sock-puppet. You people are so pathetic that if anyone agrees with me, you assume it’s me posting as somebody else. Get a grip.
It is probably worth mentioning that the moon DOES NOT face uniformly towards the Earth. Slightly more than half of its surface is visible from Earth due to an apparent “wobble”, due to the eccentricity of its orbit. The moon’s own rate of rotation is fixed, whereas its orbital velocity is higher at the lower part of its orbit. As a result, its orientation moves slightly “ahead” and “behind” the direct Earth-facing orientation as its orbital velocity rises and falls.
Further worth mentioning tidal forces. The bulges of the Earth’s marine tides are dragged slightly ahead of the positions directly under the moon and opposite by the Earth’s faster rotation. The bulge facing the moon is slightly ahead, and also closer, amounting to a net accelerating gravitational influence on the moon. The Earth is gradually slowing in its rotation as a result, and the moon being thrust further from the Earth. A similar force acted on the moon’s own tidal bulge over several billion years, braking its rotation until it matched the (average) speed of its orbit, at which it remains synchronised. The moon used to rotate much faster, as do many other moons in the solar system still.
Needless to say, a moon visibly rotating wrt the Earth would render the discussion moot. We happen to live in a time when the moon’s own rotation has been slowed so as to exactly match its orbital period. Hence the confusion shown by those also not too clever with temperatures and suchlike.
If we sent them to Saturn for a few centuries everyone would be better off, not least because its moons’ axes of rotation are not all even aligned parallel to its own. If our moon had been decent enough to lie on its side we wouldn’t have to put up with this nonsense. I’d like to see them argue that Phoebe is orbiting rather than rotating.
Elliott apparently believes it is the first time libration has been discussed. Oh dear.
I ĥave no difficulty whatsoever believing that it could be discussed 100 times without you grasping it.
OK, Elliott, be unpleasant.
You can literally model rotation about an axis with this simple website
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
You can move the axis to be internal to the shape or external to the shape.
Select a 360 degree rotation and watch the object to see how it moves.
The earth is rotating about two axis (itself and the sun)
The moon is rotating about one axis (the earth)
ftop_t – A good site for fooling yourself. It can show you rotation about a single axis that LOOKS LIKE an orbit and you thereby reinforce a pre-existing conviction. Show me a site that can model any other moon, rotating about its own axis while also orbiting around a planet, and you’ll be closer to being able to falsify your claim.
You’ll find that for all rotation speeds EXCEPT that synchronised with the orbit, the two separate motions will be quite obvious. It’s only when you pick ONE SPECIFIC rotation rate that you can maintain this delusion.
By the way, a single body rotating in space could not rotate about an external axis. It would rotate about its centre of mass. So that’s not a useful “model”, it’s a moving picture.
ftop_t – Hells, that site even calls the movement “rotation”!
Try running a model in your head that shows the triangle rotating about an external point but always remaining oriented with the same face horizontal and at the top. Will you concede that the triangle is then not rotating about its own axis?
Elliott, the website shows that an object that is rotating about an external axis always keeps the same face pointed towards that axis whilst it moves, and that this is one single motion.
Revolution, or orbiting, is just another word for a rotation about an external axis. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-563746
“Try running a model in your head that shows the triangle rotating about an external point but always remaining oriented with the same face horizontal and at the top. Will you concede that the triangle is then not rotating about its own axis?”
Since rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis whilst it moves, if the triangle was oriented the way you describe whilst moving then it would have to be both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, in opposite directions and at the same rate.
“Elliott, the website shows that an object that is rotating about an external axis always keeps the same face pointed towards that axis whilst it moves, and that this is one single motion.”
And as I said, that makes it an excellent tool with which to fool yourself. You’ve just picked a “model” which consists only of your own false assumption. Come up with a tool that allows one to input the axial rotation separately from the orbital rotation and you have a chance.
“Since rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis whilst it moves”
Thus circularly introducing your false conclusion as a premise…
“if the triangle was oriented the way you describe whilst moving then it would have to be both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, in opposite directions and at the same rate.”
Wrong. Badly and embarrassingly wrong. If the triangle were always oriented the same way towards the sides of the bounding rectangle it would NOT be rotating, as any external observer would see simply by keeping a telescope trained on its centre of mass.
It would have the motion one would expect of a non-rotating triangular spaceship entering from deep space and being parked in orbit: An elliptical orbit with no axial rotation.
If the little green men wanted artificial gravity they would have to spin the ship up separately.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
“Thus circularly introducing your false conclusion as a premise…”
Incorrect. That rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis is proven by using the tool ftop_t found, and by studying Fig. 2(b) of the Madhavi text I linked to further upthread.
@Elliott
Rotation about an internal or external axis is a mathematical calculation. For 2D (planar geometry) the math is produced via matrix calculations
[x]
[y]
To calculate the location of a point for rotation about an axis you use the rotational matrix
[COS(theta) -SIN(theta)]
[SIN(theta) COS(theta)]
Where theta is the degrees of rotation
If I place a triangle at points A =(1,1) & B=(3,1) {flat top} and C=(2,-1); Point A is closest to the origin. To model the moon, point A should always be closest.
The mathematical formula for rotating that triangle about its own axis (90 degrees) and about an external (90 degrees) would be as follows
Line A-B = (1,1)(3,1)
Start by moving the triangle points two units to the left so you can rotate over the origin -> A=(-1,1) B=(1,1) {flat top} and C=(0,-1) to place the triangle’s center at (0,0)
Line A-B = (-1,1)(2-1)
Rotate 90 degrees about its own axis
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [-1] A transforms to [-1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [ 1] [-1]
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [1] B transforms to [-1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 1]
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [ 0] C transforms to [1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [-1] [0]
Line A-B = (-1,-1)(-1,1)
Line A-B is now perpendicular and the flat side that was pointing up is not pointing to the left.
Now we move the triangle back two units to the right
A=(1,-1) B=(1,1) flat top points to the left instead of up the point of the triangle that was at (2,-1) is now at C=(3,0)
Line A-B = (1,-1)(1,1)
Now we rotate about the external axis (0,0) by 90 degrees
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [ 1] transforms to [1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [-1] [1]
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [1] transforms to [-1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 1]
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [3] transforms to [0]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [0] [3]
The triangle has now switched from pointing up to pointing down after a synchronous 90 degree rotation about its own axis and about an external axis.
The A-B line is now (1,1)(-1,1) and the point that was below the triangle is now above this line at (0,3)
This is 2D planar geometry applying the universal calculation for rotation. In this scenario, we rotated the object 90 degrees about its own axis while at the same time rotating 90 degrees about an external axis.
The only way to keep the line A-B oriented the same way to the origin is to remove the internal rotation about the triangle’s axis. By applying just the external rotation we get:
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [1] A transforms to [-1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 1]
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [3] B transforms to [-1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 3]
[COS(90) -SIN(90)] [ 2] C transforms to [1]
[SIN(90) COS(90)] [-1] [2]
Now line A-B = (-1,1)(-1,3) and the side points to the left vs up
This keeps point A closest to the origin and models the moon’s rotation.
If you can prove your position mathematically, I am interested to see the calculation. If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the right and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix
If you can prove your position mathematically, I am interested to see the calculation. If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the right and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model
Should read
If you can prove your position mathematically, I am interested to see the calculation. If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the *left* and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model
Ftop_t,
Your talents are clearly wasted as you are aware of rotational matrices and consequently I think you should try your hand at coding.
Here are some examples where these matrices have been applied to display the orbital and rotational motions of the Moon.
https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif
This should explain visually the decomposition of the moon’s motion into
1. motion of the centre of mass of the Moon ( the base of the red arrow in the main part of the display).
2. Rotation of the moon around the centre of mass ( shown in the left hand frames).
Of course the only case where the red arrow faces the Earth over the entire orbit is for case B which corresponds to one lunar rotation per orbital period. Case C obviously corresponds to zero rotation of the Moon on its axis while for A the moon rotates at twice the rate that it orbits.
I hope this clears up your confusion.
Case A = one counter-clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit.
Case B = not rotating on its own axis.
Case C = one clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
You are going to have to provide the mathematical proof as I have done. Otherwise this is just an attempt at obfuscation.
In the graphic you posted, B can only be modeled with a single rotation (orbit) around an external axis.
If you believe you are correct and there are two rotations, provide the number of Radians (or degrees of rotation) in the rotations for both the internal axis and external axis at any point in the orbit.
One can easily overlay a triangle on the moon with a flat side facing the external axis (center of rotation) and the point outward.
Like the equalateral triangle depicted here:
https://owlcation.com/stem/Calculator-Techniques-for-Circles-and-Triangles-in-Plane-Geometry
You should be able to mathematically predict the location for each point (A, B, C) in the triangle by applying the radians (or degrees of rotation) for each axis.
I contend you can only accurately predict the location of the points on the triangle at an orbital location by applying a single external rotation to the radian measure you provide, I can accurately predict the location of all three points on the triangle anywhere on the orbital path via this method.
After applying the rotations you specify mathematically for each axis, we can determine if your combined rotational calculation (internal and external axis) accurately specifies where points A, B & C of the triangle will be.
Or do you reject the validity of planar geometry?
Ftop_t (can I call you ftop for short?),
I am not sure what the point of your calculations are other than to demonstrate that you can successfully employ a 2 x 2 matrix to geometrically rotate co-ordinates.
I am sure you are mathematically correct (assumption based on I can’t really be bothered checking your work) but your conclusions regarding the moon’s orbital mechanics are clearly wrong (see Elliot Bignell’s comments regarding your premise).
If you want to do something useful with your talent then you could readily simulate the moon’s motion* using software such as Matlab**( assuming you are running a Windows PC).
The major advantage of employing this approach is twofold.
Firstly you can readily visualise where you may have made a mistake with either your premise or conclusion and secondly, and more importantly , acquired a life long skill that could benefit you intellectually and lead to career development.
* my depiction of the Moon’s motion above, was for historical reasons ( old dog’s avoidance of new tricks, and having pre-existing code and relevant licenses) coded in C++.
** You can download a trial version of Matlab for one month’s use for free from https://www.mathworks.com/downloads/.
All you basically need is these two commands , ” imread” and “imrotate” and a screen capture of a graphic and, as they say around these parts, ” Bob’s your uncle”.
A very good free alternative, if you use Linux, is Python and the SciPy libraries.
MikeR writes an awful lot but actually says very little. He artfully avoided responding to any point at all made by ftop_t.
DREM,
Are you stalking me?
Just joking.
p.s. Unless you have developed some mathematical and software skills that no one until now has been aware of, I think Ftop can respond to my comment perfectly adequately for himself.
In the meantime go and take a Xanax and have a good lie down. Better still take a good book on introductory physics and peruse it until you nod off. Good night and sweet dreams.
You inserted yourself into another discussion that I was already taking part in. So no, if anything you are still stalking me I’m afraid. I was just pointing out to anyone interested that you had avoided responding to any point that ftop_t had made. Personally, I would advise anyone not to bother talking to you, since you do not debate in good faith. But that’s up to ftop_t.
No DREM,
I inserted my comments directly after Ftop’s comment in all cases and then you interceded, before Ftop could reply.
DREM, why does it always have to be about you?
As for your good faith comment, this is very amusing coming from the keyboard of someone who normal response to defeat is to emit a tantrum of PSTs and blah blah. I have seen this kind of behaviour in my kids when it was age appropriate to do so. Accordingly I forgave my kids when they grew out if it. DREM, what’s your excuse and do you have a formal diagnosis?
On that note it’s way past your bedtime and time for a bed time story.
Here is one for you that you would find very educational –
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38135581-my-little-golden-book-about-the-solar-system
DREM, good night again. Don’t come out even if you just want a glass of milk.
“DREM, why does it always have to be about you?”
I don’t know why 95% of your comments are about and addressed to me but it seems you are completely obsessed.
“who normal response to defeat is to emit a tantrum of PSTs and blah blah”
No, there has been no “defeat”. This is just you lying again. You never stop. I ask you to stop trolling because all you ever do is troll, and you are starting again now. Lying and trolling.
So, MikeR, please stop lying and trolling.
FTOP,
I think most of us agree with what you show. We understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And we understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles.
But I hope you can agree that this does not apply in general to orbiting planets or Moons, which
a. move in elliptical orbits
b. all points on them DO NOT move in concentric circles around an external point.
c. rotate around internal axes that are often TILTED to their orbital plane, as is the Moon’s
Ftop_t, I assume you know that most of the Spinners do not agree with what you show. There are a whole group of them who do not understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And they do not understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles. I have spent an enormous amount of time arguing with these people. It would have been nice if any of the Spinners who thought differently had at any point helped out, but of course they did not have the integrity to do so.
Well, ftop, I cant speaK for all, but what several have argued, including me, is that an object like your triangle can be understood as doing a pure rotation around an external axis, or EQUIVALENTLY, as a translation of the CM of the object around the external axis, ie a circular orbit, plus rotation around its own axis.
This latter description is more general, and is therefore applied to elliptical orbits by astronomers, while the former description is NOT.
This is as good a place as any to show a minor update to a depiction of mine.
In the following depictions, it should be obvious that the orbiting circle represents the Moon and the stationary circle, the Earth.
I have added a red line joining the centre of the Moon’s uniform axial rotation (shown as a red cross) to the centre of mass of the Moon. This makes the longitudinal libration more apparent.
I have also added axes, as dashed lines, that accompany the Moon on its orbit, to illustrate how the Moon rotates with respect to the external frame of reference.
These depictions clearly illustrate Nate’s point about how the Moon’s orbital behavior can be described as,
1. motion of the centre of mass around the Earth (at one of the focii of an elliptical orbit) accompanied by
2.uniform rotation of the Moon around it’s centre of mass.
The following depicts a rotating moon orbiting elliptically (e = 0.0549) –
https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif
The corresponding case for a non rotating moon is shown here –
https://i.postimg.cc/Ss2t0wN6/Non-rotating-Lunatic-Orbit.gif
Finally I note that Ftop appears to have some mathematical aptitude that others sorely lack. Therefore I hope I don’t need to elaborate for Ftop regarding these depictions as, stand alone, they should be convincing that the moon does indeed rotate on its axis.
n.b. It should also be obvious from these depictions that any attempt to make a simple analogy between the Moon’s motion to a merry-go-around is simply bordering on lunacy.
Ftop_t has proved an important point…that rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis, throughout. In other words, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. This is apparently accepted by some Spinners, so I will be expecting them to contribute upthread, where the idea that a ball on a string has two axes of rotation is still being put forward by SGW and others. I look forward to seeing Spinner argue against Spinner.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“that rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis, throughout.”
Unlike the Moon which has longitudinal libration, as modeled by MikeR’s gif.
…but, generally speaking, the same side is oriented towards the axis of rotation.
DREM,
I see you have abandoned your simple merry-go-around analogy. Good move as it was batting 0 out of 5.
Unfortunately your ball on a string is not going to fare any better, particularly if the string is of constant length . Yes you could have two people involved to draw out an ellipse by winding the string about a person at each focus*. However keeping the ball in motion would be quite a task, made even more complicated by trying to have the ball move faster at one focus and slower at the other.
But lets stick to the simplest analogy for a circular orbit.
see-
https://i.postimg.cc/RVtcKvN5/Ball-on-a-String.gif
As per the previous description, the motion again can be described as simply as follows,
1.the centre of mass of the ball is rotating around the centre of revolution and
2.the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the centre of mass.
The latter concept is way too difficult for some, but they can use the NSWE axes that tracks with the ball to check this. People with vision impairment may need to have the assistance of a guide dog. Again a Braille version can be made available upon request.
* https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/2013/09/06/drawing-an-ellipse-the-string-method/
“As per the previous description, the motion again can be described as simply as follows,
1.the centre of mass of the ball is rotating around the centre of revolution and
2.the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the centre of mass.”
Incorrect, MikeR. The motion can either be described as:
1. center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle and
2. the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the center of mass.
Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:
1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.
Unfortunately for the Spinners, the motion of the ball on a string, wooden horse on a merry-go-round, and chalk circle on a merry-go-round, can all be described more simply as one single motion, a rotation about a central axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.
“Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:
1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.”
For greater clarity:
1. A rotation of the ball around a central, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
“In other words, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. This is apparently accepted by some Spinners, so I will be expecting them to”
DREMT reads selectively again.
Read the part from EQUIVALENTLY onward.
What do you find there to disagree with?
So, to elaborate, the Spinners need to realize:
1) I no longer respond to Nate. So there is no point in him asking me questions, or responding to my comments. I haven’t been responding to him for nearly two years. He just needs to get over it.
2) There is no “axis” for translation. An “axis” is specific to rotation. So for those that believe the motion of a ball on a string can be broken into two components, a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation of the ball about its own axis, they still only have one axis of rotation.
3) Because of what I explained in 2), the statement “the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation” is an absolute truth, regardless of which way you want to describe the motion.
It is clear that DREM cannot process visual information, so trying to explain anything to him via graphical depictions is entirely useless. However others, such as Ftop, may not be as severely impaired as DREM, so these depictions may have served some purpose.
Any way the immediate discussion is all related to circular motion which is not pertinent to the Moon.
On the latter issue, upstream we find DREM trying to explain away the problem with “but, generally speaking, the same side is oriented towards the axis of rotation.”
Generally speaking Bob’s my uncle. Except when Bob is my aunt and is also 50% pregnant.
Accordingly , maybe DREMT meant to say “generally speaking more than one side is oriented towards the axis of rotation (or axis of curvilinear translation in DREM’s innovative terminology)”.
Speaking specifically, rather than generally, there is no conceivable explanation for libration that does not require a moon, uniformly rotating on its axis , while orbiting at a variable rate.
If DREM has contrary concrete evidence then he should produce it. By concrete I mean via maths and/or diagrams or a reference to a paper or article that attempts this feat. . Explanations via hand waving* don’t really cut the muster for those of us who have a scientific background.
So DREM show us what you are made of.
* I fully expect DREM to link back to some previous hand waving b.s. of his.
MikeR tries to divert again.
MikeR:
1) the ball on a string, wooden horse on a merry-go-round, and chalk circle on a merry-go-round all have only one axis of rotation. Do you agree? Yes or no? If no, why?
2) if they had two axes of rotation, we would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Do you agree? Yes or no? If no, why?
“1. center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle and
2. the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the center of mass.
Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:
1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.”
I see DREMT is making progress, even quoting me.
Now he just needs to rebut the rest of it:
“This (first) description is more general, and is therefore applied to elliptical orbits by astronomers, while the (second) description is NOT.”
But of course, being this close to ending the debate once and for all, he will demur.
But let’s note the DREMT progress.
He now promotes rigorous mathematical models, thanks to FTOP, rather than analogies.
He now acknowledges the mathematical EQUIVALENCE of the spinner model to the non-spinner pure-rotation model for a circular synchronous orbit.
He now just needs to take the next logical step, and acknowledge that for real orbits, that are elliptical, the pure rotation model is simply not mathematically rigorous, while the MORE GENERAL spinner model IS rigorous (as noted in Madhavi a general plane motion).
He then would appreciate why astronomers and aerospace engineers, who require rigorous mathematical models in their work, will have little use for his model (analogy).
And then we could be done with the debate.
MikeR? What is your answer to those two questions?
DREM,
With reference to 1).
No, I do definitely do not agree, as per the relevant depiction. I will try once more as DREM might have had his cataracts removed in the last few hours.
https://i.postimg.cc/RVtcKvN5/Ball-on-a-String.gif
One axis at the location of the person holding the string and one axis with respect to external frame of reference. That makes two, unless you demand a recount. Likewise of course for the MGR.
With reference to 2).
Obviously no. We will not all sides if the object is revolving and rotating at the same rate and in the same direction. Visual confirmation from the above depiction. Maybe ask your seeing eye dog for an opinion.
Returning to my immediately preceding comment, do you have a waffle free explanation for libration that does not require a moon, uniformly rotating on its axis , while orbiting at a variable rate?
How will DREM respond to this challenge? Just another rehash of old material as per his last comments? A link to a hand waving argument or just a PST? Stay tuned…
MikeR, we will not be proceeding any further until you have answered “yes” to both questions. Your first mistake was in saying that there are two axes of rotation for the ball on the string. Have you not paid any attention to what has been said, even by people on your own side of the argument!?
There are only two ways you can describe the motion of the ball on a string:
Spinner way:
1) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus
2) a rotation of the ball on its own axis.
Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.
Non-Spinner way:
1) A rotation of the ball about a central, external axis, with no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass.
Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the revolution.
So, correct your previous answer from “no” to “yes”, and we will proceed to the next question.
So DREM,
you will not provide a detailed response to my question unless I answer appropriately and agree with your nonsense!
Interesting debating technique. Where did you learn that one, Oxford or Cambridge?
So I will answer yes,yes mein kommandant to your questions. Anything you say.
Anything to get you to provide the details of your libration model.
Give it a go DREM, we desparately need to hear your words of wisdom and be exposed to the brilliance of your unique insights.
Sorry, MikeR, it has to be a genuine response. You have to actually understand why you are wrong to say that the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. Did you pay any attention at all to what others have been saying?
Can we just chose to disagree about those two points regarding circular motion and move on?
You are obviously terrified to reply with your own theory regarding libration. Confront your deepest fears and let us all be privileged to hear the details of your model.😀
No, we cannot agree to disagree, sorry. This is completely fundamental to the entire debate. What you could do to start with, is explain what I have written that you disagree with. That would be how debates usually work…
…and there is nothing for you at the end of this. I have explained the Non-Spinner perspective on libration dozens of times, and will not be doing so again. In fact, you can just scroll down-thread to where Tim Folkerts brought it up, if you like. I am not discussing it here. This is just me, grilling you on these two questions, until you stop responding, or agree.
DREM your terror is palpable. Maybe that is why your discussion following Tim Folkerts comments is such a convoluted confused morass.
The world needs clarity. Nations are sending space probes to the Moon without the necessary information.
Surely DREM, with minimal effort, you can just cut and paste the appropriate material regarding libration, so we can see your explanation in its full glory.
Otherwise you are just confirming my opinion ( and presumably nearly everybody else’s) that, heaven forbid, you are just another bloviating blowhard.
Prove us all wrong.
Baiting and goading is not going to work, MikeR.
What did I write that you disagreed with?
Here it is again:
There are only two ways you can describe the motion of the ball on a string:
Spinner way:
1) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus
2) a rotation of the ball on its own axis.
Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.
Non-Spinner way:
1) A rotation of the ball about a central, external axis, with no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass.
Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the revolution.
Thank-you DREM for confirming your status as a bloviating blowhard (armchair variety). Your confirmation will be mailed to you with a card that can be used at a relevant clinic of your choice.
As for your two questions, once again an emphatic No and No for both, based on my previous comments such as,
The depiction clearly illustrates Nate’s point about how the Moon’s orbital behavior can be described as,
1. motion of the centre of mass around the Earth (at one of the focii of an elliptical orbit) accompanied by
2.uniform rotation of the Moon around it’s centre of mass.
The following depicts a rotating moon orbiting elliptically (e = 0.0549) –
https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif
DREM, if you would reconsider your position, at the risk of losing your blowhard status, then you are welcome to respond appropriately regarding the Moon’s libration.
Have we exhauseted the full repertoire of DREM’s evasion techniques that he has honed over the past year or two?
Will he move on beyond the “I am being goaded to reveal the state of my ignorance”? Stay tuned, answer coming up…
Look at how he evades!
MikeR…
…what did I write that you disagreed with?
Here it is again:
There are only two ways you can describe the motion of the ball on a string:
Spinner way:
1) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus
2) a rotation of the ball on its own axis.
Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.
Non-Spinner way:
1) A rotation of the ball about a central, external axis, with no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass.
Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the revolution.
DREM , Actually you are almost correct, nothing is wrong with your point 1) other than your inclusion of “Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.” which I have already vehemently objected to previously by stating that there are two axes of rotation.
Remove that and I will change my answer to a Yes and that should be the end * of the dispute and we can move on from the circular to the more appropriate elliptical orbit . Hopefully you can then enlighten us with a coherent description of libration from your viewpoint.
With respect to your original question 2) “if they had two axes of rotation, we would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Do you agree? Yes or no? If no, why?” ,
My answer remains obviously No as per my depiction above.
* I will disregard your strange use of the general term “translation” rather than the more specifically appropriate term, revolution or rotation.
With the ball on a string problem I solved, Point A at the center of mass of the ball had an angular velocity about the origin “O”. That is an axis of rotation, and it had a given orbital angular velocity of 1 rad/s. You use that data to solve for V(A). The other rotation axis is about the COM of the ball.
SGW said of his own “proof” regarding the ball on a string:
“So there is your proof that the ball on a string can be described as a translation plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.”
Well, SGW, a translation is a translation. It does not involve an axis of rotation. So you only have the one axis of rotation, going through the center of mass of the ball. This is what I keep trying to explain to MikeR. Even from the Spinner perspective, the ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation. From the Non-Spinner perspective (as proven by ftop_t) the ball on a string also has only one axis of rotation, this time at the center of the revolution. It does not rotate about its own center of mass.
Here’s DREMT:
“The motion can either be described as:
1. center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle and
2. the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the center of mass.
Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:
1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.”
Now for some reason, when SGW says the same thing:
“So there is your proof that the ball on a string CAN BE described as a translation plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.”
SGW is wrong???
SGW, you are wrong because you are arguing that the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. Just thought I would clarify in case you were incapable of following the discussion. The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, either way you describe its motion.
DREMT takes a deep dive into a semantic rabbit hole in hopes of distracting us..
‘center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle’
OK with DREMT
‘the ball is rotating on an axis centered on the center of mass’
OK with DREMT.
‘Rotation = translating in a circle around a central axis.’
OK with DREMT.
All together, two axes. OK for the Earth.
Not OK with DREMT.
Another reason I stopped responding to Nate, besides his inability to follow a discussion, was his tendency for misrepresentation.
Standard TEAM technique when caught saying something erroneous:
Claim you’ve ‘been misrepresented’. No need to explain how.
SGW, if there were two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the ball would have to be wrapping up in the string. Just like how there are two axes of rotation for the Earth, and you see all sides of the Earth from the sun.
P.S: rotation is not “translating in a circle around a central axis”, just in case someone had confused you about that. Translation in a circle would be curvilinear translation.
An excellent combination of the math and visual aspect of rotating around an external axis while also rotating around a internal axis is the carnival ride – the scrambler.
Each arm of the scrambler creates an external axis that a group of four cars travel around. (Some versions have three cars in a group)
It is the addition of the rotation around an internal axis to the four cars that gives it the unique motion.
As you sit in a car, there are time during the ride when you are farthest from the external axis and closest because you are rotating around an internal axis to the other cars.
The bar to the center is a consistent length but your distance to the center only changes because of the second axis of rotation
Regardless of the speed of rotation of the grouping of cars, even if it is the same as the bar’s rotation around the center. A riders distance from the center will change.
http://archives.math.utk.edu/CTM/SIXTH/McMullin-2/paper.html
Compare that with a rotation around a central axis depicted here
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/srwgzppqte
If you turn on the circles, you see each point of the triangle follows its own sized orbital path based on its unique distance from the external axis and it never strays from the circle as it traverses.
The reason MikeR’s graphics are not correct is his small image of the moon and the orbiting image are from two different frame of references.
If I stand on the side of the road as a bus drives by, I get a different experience than if I stand in front of it.
To amplify on the frame of reference issue in the diagrams MikeR posted.
The static box is a snapshot of the position of the rotating object. In a view consistent with the broad view of the entire orbital path, the snapshot would only see the object pass through once on each 360 degree orbit.
The view provided by the small object rotating in the square would only be available if you were floating above the object and following its orbital path. While you were following the object you would have to maintain your visual point of reference in the same direction as some distant object outside of the orbital motion even as you changed direction on the orbital path.
Think of a race car driver who regardless of where he was on the track, he would have to keep his car pointing in the same direction as it was at the starting line up.
The wheels of the car would have to turn to follow the track while the frame of the car stayed in the same direction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-567738
Thoughts FTOP?
Nate,
A rotation is defined as being unique from general translations because it requires a fixed whereas general translations have no fixed point.
If the motion of the orbiting object includes a rotation about its axis, this motion should be prevalent even if the orbital motion stopped and it could be modeled regardless of rotational speed.
If you doubled the rotational speed of the orbiting object and stopped its translational speed along the orbital path, would its orientation to the external axis still be consistent?
This fails because the substituting the external rotation for an internal rotation combined with an orbital path is form fitting vs. modeling the motion poorly.
In this link, there is an option to change the rotational rate
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/srwgzppqte
Regardless of the rotational speed, the orientation remains consistent around the external axis.
This goes back to my comments on uniformity. The model should allow decomposition to its parts and still be consistent. Motion vectors should be additive (including rotational matrices)
This is only achievable with a single rotation around an external axis.
Ftop,
Good to see you back. I have just had a look at your first post after your absence.
Thanks, your scrambler example is an excellent test of my software!
The following depiction shows an orbiting object that is simultaneously rotating on its axis through the centre of mass, in both the opposite and in the same direction, at various multiples, corresponding to the different values of p in the article by Lin McMullin.
https://i.postimg.cc/RF3YWgJS/Scrambler-Lin-Mc-Mullin.gif
As you can see my software very closely matches the results presented in that article which is very pleasing.
This is the same software that allowed me to simulate the Moon’s elliptical orbit and calculate a longitinal libration that matches the measured value.
https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif
As you can see the only way can get any semblance of agreement is if the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit in the same direction as it orbits.
I hope these examples are convincing enough to change your mind regarding the Moon’s rotation. It can be hard to change one’s mind when faced with contrary evidence but as a wise man once said When facts change, I change my mind.
Ftop,
Regarding your other point in your first comment after your break.
Your point about the changing radius is valid except for one case p =1, i.e. when the rotational period matches the orbital period.
For p = 0 (no rotation) the radius changes as the sides swap over.
See https://i.postimg.cc/RF3YWgJS/Scrambler-Lin-Mc-Mullin.gif
“As you can see my software very closely matches the results presented in that article which is very pleasing.”
It doesn’t match it at all, what on Earth are you talking about!?
“This fails because the substituting the external rotation for an internal rotation combined with an orbital path is form fitting vs. modeling the motion poorly.”
Im not sure what this means, FTOP.
But the point of the combination is to make it generally applicable to orbits other than circular, eg elliptical, with internal rotations around tilted axes.
Thus astronomy uses the combined internal rotation plus orbital path model to describe the Moon’s motion.
Make sense to you?
“P.S: rotation is not ‘translating in a circle around a central axis’, just in case someone had confused you about that. Translation in a circle would be curvilinear translation.”
And DREMT continues his erroneous ways. We’re talking about a POINT (CM) moving in a circle around another point. How is that not a rotation???!!
I take it back, I see it now. It was the red and blue mixed together that confused me. I needed to focus on the shapes made by just the red or the blue. Yes, it matches fine.
The mistake being made is the same as always, McMullin is not correctly separating the axial rotation from the orbital motion.
Going back to what we were discussing previously, I hope people can see the sleight of hand that is going on, regarding the ball on a string. This is what they do:
1) In general plane motion, you decompose a motion into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about that center of mass.
2) So for the ball on a string, they argue the center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the ball is then rotating about that center of mass.
3) Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis at the center of revolution.
4) Hey presto! Suddenly the ball on a string has two axes of rotation!
No. A translation is a translation. It involves no axis of rotation. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, even if you do look at it as a general plane motion.
A ball on a string is more simply and accurately described as a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of revolution, with no rotation about the balls own center of mass. One single motion.
Either way, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. If it had two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
@MikeR
As I mentioned earlier, the frame of reference in your small box is non-physical. There is no view of that motion that would appear in a static window.
You would have to display the box following the object above it in an orbital path to accurately model the motion.
I love your model structurally, but you need to provide options for decomposition.
You should have a counter for:
# of orbits
# of internal axis rotations
That way, you can set the axis rotations and orbits independently since they are two distinct motions
In the scrambler ride, the operator could turn on the rotation of the cars without turning on the center rotation of the ride. Now the cars are rotating about an internal axis. He could also turn on the center rotation and keep the cars static.
If you revise your model to allow initiative of the independent motions (internal rotation & external rotation) it would allow you to decompose the separate motions.
By keeping the orbit at zero and rotating the external object, you would draw a circle representing the rotation of the object about its axis. If you set the orbit to 1 and the internal axis rotation to zero, you create the internal two circles showing the inside and outside of the orbital path.
As your model is currently, you can’t decompose the motions.
DREMT,
Yup.
Think about a roulette wheel. At the end of a spin the ball is sitting in a slot with no rotation inside the number only the wheel is spinning.
You could argue that the ball got there by accelerating on an orbital path from the previous number to the current number and draw that translation as an arc; but that is not how the ball got there. Is it equivalent to dropping the ball watching it bounce a random number of times and end up in a slot?
Similarly, you could argue that the ball walked to the middle of the wheel, chose an angle, and walked back out to the new number. Again, this is not physical, but is it equivalent?
The idea that you can ignore the rotation around an external axis, describe orbital motion as two linear translation vectors and an internal rotation is a mathematical equivalent to the final positioning, but its decomposition is not uniform to the physical motion you are modeling.
@Nate,
“This fails because the substituting the external rotation for an internal rotation combined with an orbital path is form fitting vs. modeling the motion poorly.
Im not sure what this means, FTOP.”
Just a typo, apologies.
Should read “modeling the motion properly”
Ftop,
Still unclear what your pov on is.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-569406
Ftop, point is, your external rotation model is not correct for the Moon for the Moon for the reasons stated. Yes or no?
“1) In general plane motion, you decompose a motion into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about that center of mass.
2) So for the ball on a string, they argue the center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the ball is then rotating about that center of mass.”
Yes, and this is the KEY point. Once you accept that then you should un
“3) Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis at the center of revolution.
4) Hey presto! Suddenly the ball on a string has two axes of rotation!”
Well yes, but this is a side issue, and just semantics.
An object following an orbital path without internal rotation also has orbital angular momentum.
..should understand why Astronomy uses this combination model, which applies to elliptical orbits and accounts for tilted internal rotational axes, like the Moon’s.
ftop_t, I don’t think they’re ever going to get it. Until they start acknowledging that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, and not two, there is not going to be any progress.
calling ftop…
Ftop seems unwilling to answer.
Another point you made
“there is an option to change the rotational rate
https://www.desmos.com/calculato
Regardless of the rotational speed, the orientation remains consistent around the external axis.”
Of course we know that the Moon doesnt behave that way. Its orientation doesnt pointt consistently to the external axix. It wobbles quite a lot, due to its noncircular orbit, and tilted rotional axis.
Ftop,
I gather from your comment , that before you are happy to accept the results of my depictions, you want my software to be able to vary the two rotation rates independently.
This is clearly pointless as the results only depend on the parameter p which is the ratio of the rotation rate to the orbital rate ( using celestial mechanics nomenclature). If Ftop you insist on a demonstration, I can do this, by doubling , or halving both rotations simultaneously, but it is clearly a waste of time.
However If you have the time to waste, I strongly suggest you do this yourself.
On that note have you, followed my suggestion and tried learning to code? Lin McMullin’s article even includes code that can be run on a graphical calculator. Do you, or perhaps a member or your family, own a TI-85 calculator or similar, the type that was extremely popular in schools a decade or so ago? If not, you can get them on Ebay for about $10.
The other aspect of your comment is that, perhaps you have now decided that the McMullin analysis that uses two independent rotational motions is incorrect. In that case you have joined the “eccentrics” (being ironically* polite here ) that believe the astronomical and physics communities, since the time of Newton, has been grossly incorrect about their understanding of the Moon’s motion.
If indeed that is the case, then you should definitely extend your capabilities and program that calculator to graphically depiction libration for an elliptical orbit with and without the Moon rotating on its axis.
Publish this and possibly fame and fame and fortune awaits . You may end up on the dais in Stockholm one day. Maybe a Fields medal as well.
The burning of Newton’s Principa and all the astronomical textbooks will then follow in due course. As auto-de-fes have gone out of fashion, due to excessive greenhouse emissions, rotating heretics will be terminated with extreme prejudice, by some other means. I am not sure how censorship will work with the Internet , but A.I. could be used to simply add “non” to every mention of the word “rotation”.
Finally I must apologise to Ftop for the latter light hearted tongue in cheek, comments that might cause offense. At least Ftop has made a brave attempt to employ a small modicum of mathematical analysis, unlike the rest of the arm chair eccentrics.
For this he deserves credit and if he is capable of changing his mind then he will be deserve even more credit.
* ironic, as the “eccentrics” fly off on tangents at the mere mention of elliptical orbits.
Lets see…how can we get this message across…
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/srwgzppqte
Next to the number 21, is a slider. Move the slider and watch the triangle rotate about an external axis in the center of the screen. This is one single motion. The triangle is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is rotating about the external axis in the center of the screen. There is only one axis of rotation.
Understand?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570411
@Nate,
You asked for my POV on this comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-569406
The items you mentioned include:
Tilted axis
Elliptic vs circular orbits
In regards to tilted axis, from my perspective, this point is moot. If you ignore the perspective of the earth, the moon’s orbit can be referenced as planar. Replace the earth with a dot to remove any bias from the earths tilt and the moon follows a 2D planar elliptical orbit.
In regards to Elliptic vs. circular orbits. All circles are ellipses, as a circle is just an ellipse where both foci are at the center and can be algebraically reduced to x(2) + y(2) = 1
Because of the significant mass of the moon vs a satellite like the space station, the elliptical center is not at the center of the earth.
The fact that the moon stays oriented along its orbital path with the same side facing the direction of its orbit is consistent with a rotation around a center and not a rotation about its axis. Because the orbital path is not uniform and the earth is not at the center. Our viewing angle changes like a car going into turn one shows more of the rear of the car to someone in pit row.
It is understood that the moon accelerates and slows at different points in its orbital path.
Is it your contention that the rotation of the moon changes speeds? Do you think it is possible for a rotating object to slow down and then speed up consistently at just the right time? Is it coincidence?
@MikeR says,
“This is clearly pointless as the results only depend on the parameter p which is the ratio of the rotation rate to the orbital rate ( using celestial mechanics nomenclature). If Ftop you insist on a demonstration, I can do this, by doubling , or halving both rotations simultaneously, but it is clearly a waste of time.”
The purpose is to be able to isolate the motions and run them independently. Typically, in science, you want to isolate a variable and not have two variables intertwined.
For examples, if I put four (4) chemicals in a mixture at once, I don’t know which one is the reactant. Changing the amount of each by 1/2 and still pouring them all in at once doesn’t lead to discovery.
My preference would be to:
Hold the orbital rotation at 0
Set the rotation about its axis for the object to:
Value = 1, Run Test
Value = 2. Run Test
Value = 3, Run Test
Value = 4, Run Test
Set the orbital rotation to 1
Set the rotation about its axis for the object to:
Value = 1, Run Test
Value = 2. Run Test
Value = 3, Run Test
Value = 4, Run Test
Compare results from each orbital rotation
FTOP,
See below for my response.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571933
Hi Ftop,
I hope you would be able to try your hand programming so you could get an immediate answer for yourself, rather than waiting for myself to get around to providing the answer.
Anyway as requested, for a range of speeds for axial rotations and orbital speeds –
https://i.postimg.cc/yNW8kXvv/Circular-Orbits-Varying-Orbital-Speed.gif
It is obvious, from the above, that just the value of p dictates the curves. For the rotational speed of zero all the curves for different orbital speeds were identical as p = 0 for all cases.
For a rotational speed of one the curves change as expected for p=1 (orbital locking) , p =1/2, p=1/3 and p =1/4.
In the end the exercise was a bit of a waste of time other than just seeing what the curves looked like for p<1.
Ftop,if you still haven't changed your mind about the Moon's rotation then you need to address the elliptical orbit plus obliquity issues that Nate raises. Both of these issues have caused untold grief to the non rotators.
Accordingly I can, upon request, post depictions for elliptical orbits for the above cases, if this is any help moving from grieving denial to acceptance.
@MikeR
I work in the cyber-security industry and have both a computer science & math degree.
I moved into sales growth many years ago which is very lucrative. With the SolarWinds challenges, it has been an amazing financial windfall over the last two weeks.
I work full-time and this site is a passing hobby.
In this note, I want to specifically address the concept of axis rotation (internal and external) leaving @Nate questions about the moon to a different reply.
My contention is that there are unique ways to model these actions and the behavior is different for:
Rotation around an internal axis
Rotation around an external axis
Rotation around both an internal and an external axis
Motion (rotational) can be modeled mathematically. To that end the link below provides a graphics calculator that has options to initiate each of those motions.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/btcyls4vi6
Click on “Rotating on Axis” to see the object rotate in a fixed position
Click on “Orbiting Figure” to see the object rotate around an external axis (the origin 0,0)
Click on “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting” to see the object rotate on its axis while orbiting around an external axis.
If both rotations are active, different sides of the triangle point at the origin
Adding a little more features to this graphic calculator view:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
I have two separate rotational values
r = rotation speed around the origin
s = rotation speed around the internal axis
With these separate values. Anyone can to go to line 29 and alter the rotation speed of the internal axis.
Initially, s = r since the counter argument is that the rotation around the external axis and the rotation of the internal axis are synchronized. As demonstrated above, all points of the triangle would point inward at some distance on the orbit
Setting s = 0, the orbiting triangle keeps the same point facing the origin (my argument that the object has one rotation around an external axis
Setting s = -r, the orbiting triangle has to rotate at a negative rate equal to the orbital rate to keep the same point of the triangle on the top
Setting s = 365r would model the earth rotating around the sun. Don’t get dizzy.
If I have time later, I’ll equate this back to the scrambler ride mentioned earlier.
ftop_t, your link is way, way too complicated. For an arbitrary mass in circular orbit about Earth, better to first: click on the 3 bars top left. Then click on: new blank graph. Then click on: Trigonometry: Unit Circle, open graph and click arrow to start a=30 moving about on the circular orbit.
THAT is the correct desmos graph for any circular motion of an Earth’s moon mass (black non-zero radius dot) rotating once on its own internal axis (as shown by the line connecting to the origin) per orbit while orbiting center mass on the external axis through 0,0.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
@Ball4
Geometry is challenging so there is an inherent complexity.
If you don’t build a model that allows the rotations to be managed independently, then the internal axis existence/movement is conjecture.
After having modeled rotational motion mathematically using the rotational matrix, the definition of a rotation can be validated easily
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. 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.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
The argument that there is an external AND an internal axis of rotation when the same side faces an external axis of rotation can be proven false mathematically.
The desmos equations in the model has several unique values that allow the falsification of the assertion that there are two axis of rotation active for an orbit where one side always faces inward.
r = rotational orbit in degrees
s = internal axis rotation in degrees
Point (o,p) is a fixed internal axis
Point (u,w) is the orbiting axis that models (o,p) as it moves
This creates some easily verifiable proofs:
Proof 1
There is no value for (r = s) where the same point of the triangle points inward. This would have to be true for synchronous orbit = internal axis rotation rate
Proof 2
Point (o,p) is meaningful for a rotation around its axis and meaningless for a rotation around an external axis
The desmos tool allows you to drag points on the graph. For the orbiting object, you can move the fixed axis anywhere either within or outside of the object and there is no effect on the orbital motion. If you move the internal axis up close to a point (still inside the triangle) the internal axis rotation changes, but the orbit is the same.
Example: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4jdqpqr7zu
Further, if you move the internal axis outside of the figure, the axis trails the object around its orbit, but the object rotating around a fixed axis begins to “orbit” like the object orbits around the origin
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/nk24aa7zov
Thus, an object orbiting around an external axis of rotation has no internally defined axis and each part of the object rotates similarly to the external point based on its radian to the point of rotation
In this view, I have moved the internal axis to another quadrant and it simply trails/leads the object around its orbital path
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uzw6fwjpsc
If there is no value where r=s that exhibits the behavior of a common face pointing to the center of rotation and the internal axis location is moot; the object rotating with the same face pointing to an external axis of rotation is not rotating on an internal axis.
Revisiting the scrambler ride,
This view shows two ways the ride could be operated.
If you turn on the axis the cars are connected to, a person sitting on the points away from the fixed point of rotation would feel the rotational motion as their inertial force tries to launch them at a tangent line to the circle of rotation.
Whereas if they were sitting on the fixed access they would only feel a spinning motion like an ice skater.
If the operator turned on the external axis, the person sitting on the fixed axis would now feel the rotational motion like the points away from the fixed axis.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/icnb0egsru
If the operator turns on both motions, an interesting experience happens. riders who are sitting at points away from the internal axis of rotation experience varying speeds.
Faster motion as the internal axis sits between their seat and the axis of rotation at the origin, and slower motion when their seat is between the two axis of rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bezpkapb3t
This is because vectors are additive and there are points in the ride where the direction of the internal axis rotation and external axis rotation have the same sign (faster motion) and points where they are opposing (slower motion). This gives the scrambler ride its unique acceleration characteristics.
If an orbiting object (like the moon) had two active rotations (internal and external), there would be times during the orbit where a point on the surface would experience this similar vector calculations.
ftop_t, your “proof” 1 is definitely faulty because I have already shown the desmos steps 4:06pm that there does exist an r=s where the same point of the non-zero radius black ball (and for any arbitrary non-zero radius object) points inward for the entire orbit. That means for my demo. r=s so I have shown & proven it true with desmos synchronous orbit = internal axis rate.
The black ball is rotating with the same face pointing to an external axis of rotation for the entire orbit by the brown line showing black ball rotating once per orbit on an internal axis. This simple baked-in, basic, easily understood demonstration also shows ftop_t “proof” 2 is faulty.
The scrambler ride discussion is irrelevant to the moon motion. Have fun with that; it doesn’t help the 2 ftop_t faulty “proofs”.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
@Ball4
Post the link.
Or is that too “complex” for you?
The reality is your vague directions without a link only contains one (1) rotational axis at the origin and the other is imaginary.
One (1) does not equal two (2)
That is not a response to my Proof #1 – it is sophistry
Post a link with two (2) axis that can be managed through the equations or do not claim there are two (2) axis.
I understand geometry is complex, but counting from one (1) to two (2) should be approachable for you.
Good luck!!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575922
That should have not been too complex for ftop_t to find. There are two nonimaginary axes of rotation demonstrated- commonly called two degrees of freedom showing r=s. The program manages the eqn.s of motion as they are so basic that they are built in.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ftop,
I am very pleased to see you return and also pleased for your good fortune.
I assume you are still pursuing the idea that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Unfortunately your attempts at modelling rotation are undermining your case.
Firstly your rotating triangle provided some further inspiration and I have modified my previous depiction to allow the rotation around the centre of mass of the triangle ( i.e. spin for a rigid body) to be independent of the the rate of rotation of the centre of mass around the origin (i.e. revolution).
Here is my new depiction.
https://i.postimg.cc/j5pDWgDK/Triangle-Rotation-General.gif
In this depiction, the rate of rotation per revolution ( p ) is adjusted over a range of from p = -2 to p = +2. For the non rotating case (p =0) the centre of the revolution at the origin sees all sides of the triangle as it orbits. For the other cases likewise, except of course, for p =1 where the triangle’s orientation with respect to the centre of revolution is fixed.
The analogy with the Moon’s motion should be obvious.
I did indicate earlier that the other fatal flaw in the non rotating hypothesis involves elliptical orbits and the corresponding total inability for thus hypothesis to account for longitudinal libration. This is where depictions of elliptical orbits can be useful as an aid to understanding.
Here is a depiction that clearly illustrates libration for an ellipse of large eccentricity ( e = 0.6 ) and for an eccentricity appropriate for the Moon’s actual orbit ( e =0.0549).
https://i.postimg.cc/L6Bc9406/Lesson-1-A-Elliptical-Orbit.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/g2zfn9fy/Lesson-2-A-Moon-Orbit.gif
For a non rotating moon we get this depiction
https://i.postimg.cc/0yWN667H/No-Rotation-Ellipse-Eccentricity-0.gif
Again, I don’t think I need to provide additional commentary as it should be patently obvious that the non-rotating Moon shows all sides to the Earth as it completes an orbit.
By the way the site that you have been extensively employing is excellent and has some rudimentary programming facilities.
I have not had a good look at it but it may be possible to duplicate elliptical orbits that also allow a rotation rate that varies* with the polar angle of the centre of mass of the triangle w.r.t to the origin. The difference in angle between a line drawn from the focus of the ellipse to the centre of mass and a line drawn from the origin to the centre of mass gives the longitudinal libration angle. I hope you can program this accordingly so that we can reach some agreement.
Finally to hopefully make the case convincing that the non-rotating hypothesis is terminally ill, here are some additional comments in reply to the chief protagonist for the non -rotators.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-563368
* see Kepler’s 2nd law for orbital motion.
MikeR goes for the “completely ignore every single word ftop_t said” option.
@MikeR
I have purposely avoided the specifics about the moon in this thread. My intention is to resolve the mathematical issues in this thread and then turn to the unique issues about the moon under this comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570411
In that thread, I will address:
Libration
Elliptical Orbiting
Barycenter
Cassini Laws
Axial tilt
Orbital elements
Nomenclature
Equivalence
Here I want to specifically focus on the mathematics of rotation (both orbital and axial) as a baseline before transitioning to unique observational elements of the moon that obfuscate the unsettled math.
This link provides a model that should be simple enough for everyone (although I shudder at that assumption):
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hlapebzffp
The tool is designed with folders so elements can be turned on and off to demonstrate motions. If someone can click on the circles in the box to the left, they should be able to follow along.
For each iteration, someone can turn all the features off or simply reload the link.
1st Concept – Rotation around a fixed axis
Click on “Original Triangle” (you should see a triangle with the long side facing the origin 0,0)
Click on “Axis of Rotation” (You should see three labeled dots 1) the origin 2) Fixed Axis 3) Orbiting Axis (based on fixed))
This only represents two axis of rotation, the origin and the center of the triangle, but since the triangle is going to orbit, a movable axis is necessary.
Click on “Rotating on Axis” (you should see red lines appear from the triangle to the origin. These represent the radius from each point to the origin)
Now go to the top left and click on -> (arrow) next to degree of rotation to start the motion.
In rotations, the distance from any point to the center of rotation stays constant, (think of grooves on a record player) but the distance to a point outside of the rotational field will change during the rotation (think of kids on a merry-go-round – sometimes they are near you and sometimes farther away as you stand beside the ride)
The red lines are changing length relative to the origin because the origin is external to the rotation
Now,
Click on “Rotating on Axis” to turn off the fixed rotation
Click on “Orbiting Figure”
Notice the green lines to the origin stay constant. This is because every point on the triangle is within the rotational field and it stays exactly the same distance from the center of rotation.
This is one rotation around a fixed point (the origin)
Now, click on “Orbiting Figure” to turn off that element
Click on “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting”
This element is rotating on its own axis and orbiting a center point – the origin.
Because the internal axis rotation is external to the orbit, the green lines change length for the internal rotation and cross over each other for the external point.
This is an example of an axial rotation and an orbital rotation.
Now click everything off accept the degree counter.
I added two options at the bottom for “Viewing Box”. I was going to try to explain to you why your GIFs are incorrect, but without the visual support I don’t think you would understand.
What you are representing with this general view is flawed because the view does not exist that you are depicting.
Click on “Viewing Box”
A blue box will appear
Now click on “Orbiting Figure”
The view you are representing in the box only exists when the object is in that position of the orbit
Now click on “Viewing Box” to remove the static box
Now click on “Viewing Box in Motion”
Now the blue box will follow the orbiting triangle WITH NO INTERNAL AXIAL ROTATION around the orbit
In order to make the blue box follow the object, you have to set the rotation “t” to t = -r.
In other words, the box is rotating in the opposition direction to the orbit at the same rotational speed. This gives the illusion that the object is rotating because the box is rotating backwards to maintain the frame of reference.
You can click on the arrow beside “Rotating Degrees” to see that t= -r.
Conclusion
For an object rotating on an internal axis the radius from any point to the center of rotation remains constant
For an object rotating around an external axis, the radius from any point to the center of rotation remains constant
For an object rotating around an internal axis, the distance to an external point varies for any point on the object
Thus, if there is an internal and an external axis of rotation, the distance from any point on the object to the external axis of rotation must vary.
If the distance varies, all sides of the object will face the external center of rotation at some point regardless of axial rotation speed or orbital speed.
Therefore, an object with both an internal and external axis of rotation will not keep the same side facing the external axis.
Again, issues about the moon will be addressed separately.
Ftop,
As a skeptic I don’t tend to trust the work of others and like to do the work myself. It does help in my understanding.
I have had a very cursory look at your work.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
Your model is overly complex and I am not sure exactly what, if anything, is wrong with it.
However I am puzzled by the fact that when you simply do, as you suggest, a rotation on an internal fixed axis, the shape of the triangle changes. This looks horribly wrong as my understanding is the triangle (like the Moon) is supposed to be a rigid object and is invariant to rotation.
Maybe I am misconstruing something? Ftop can you please clarify.
I can see from the latest example from FTOP ,
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hlapebzffp
that the triangle rotating about a fixed axis appears to be not rotating around an axis normal to the plane or parallel to the plane but at some angle, maybe 45 degrees?
Why? Is this an attempt to tackle the problem in 3D or is there something wrong with yor code?
With regard to the rest where you claim that motion with respect to the centre of mass cannot be separated out, seems to me to be a garbled mess. Similarly for your model and the viewing box, it is very unclear to me how you are arriving at your conclusions.
Perhaps its not you, rather it could be just my inability to grasp exactly what you are trying to convey (maybe your anticipatory shuddering is reasonable). However, is anyone else able to follow Ftop’s explanations?
Sorry to be a bit dubious about your work but this is actually fairly basic physics which doesn’t need elaborate models. Here is a similar problem from an introductory physics book for parabolic motion that illustrates motion about the centre of mass.
https://postimg.cc/xkg4zgr9
Here is another example where this type of analysis is employed.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/week-12-rotations-and-translation-rolling/35.2-rolling-wheel-in-the-center-of-mass-frame/
p.s. you might find it much easier to stick to 2D which I think the App is designed for. The cycloid option would be the easiest to modify, so rather than rolling back and forth horizontally, the wheel could rotate about a second axis.
Also here is a slight modification to my depiction which includes a viewing box that moves with the centre of mass.
https://i.postimg.cc/bYLRwv23/Triangle-Rotation-CM.gif
Just had another look at Ftop’s calculations. It turns out the change in shape of the triangle as it rotated was simply due to the difference in scaling in the horizontal and vertical directions when viewing the depictions on a phone.
When viewed on a PC, the scales in the horizontal and vertical are identical and the triangle’s shape does not change as it rotates. Sorry my bad.
Ftop’s last depiction above looks correct except for a couple of things.
1. the centre of the moving viewing box follows the triangle for t = r not t = -r. This is to be expected as the centre needs to rotate in the same direction and at the same angular speed as the triangle.
2. The moving viewing box also rotates as it follows the triangle so , in this case, relative to this box, the triangle is not rotating. This is different to my depiction where the orientation of the the moving viewing box is fixed.
This latter point is the crucial fundamental point that explains the difference between the lunar rotators and the lunar non-rotators.
For Ftop’s depiction the rotating viewing box is an accelerating non-inertial reference frame.
In contrast for my depiction, the fixed orientation viewing box is an inertial reference frame that corresponds,in astronomical terms, to directions N,S,W,E (i.e. N and S defined by the celestial poles at +90 degrees and at -90 degrees respectively in Declination and E and W defined by 0 and 180 degrees Right Ascension).
Alternatively, with reference to the viewing screen of the device , the directions corresponds to the fixed top, bottom and left and right of the screen.
In either astronomical and screen coordinates, Ftop’s viewing box rotates as if follows the triangle, while mine in the previous comment maintains its fixed orientation as it follows the triangle.
I highly recommend Ftop reads the relevant WIKIs about inertial and non-inertial frames and why the former is nearly always preferred by physicists and astronomers to describe celestial mechanics,
This Wiki should explain the reasons for the preference –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
Finally I must say that Ftop has done an excellent job programming up his demonstration. I just wish the other adherents to the non-rotating thesis had even 1 percent of his competence. In that case these interminable discussions could have been terminated quickly and amicably, and the discussions here wouldn’t be dominated by this largely irrelevant content.
“The argument that there is an external AND an internal axis of rotation when the same side faces an external axis of rotation can be proven false mathematically.”
And you have done so, many times over now. Well done, ftop_t.
@MikeR
You are so close to understanding, so I am not going to give up on you. You are almost there…
I want to focus on the MIT video you posted because it will help you understand what is happening
In this comment, I describe near the bottom, the addition of vectors for the scrambler:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-576334
Although I think you understand, I want to be explicit. In a coordinate plane there are four quadrants (x is +, y is +), (x is +, y is -), (x is -, y is -), (x is -, y is +)
This is important when you add vectors for motion.
In the video, the professor shows two motions,
Linear motion (let’s call it moving to the right so x is + and y is a constant) of the center of mass of the wheel’s axle
Rotational motion of a point on the wheel (this is important because the point is moving through the four quadrants referenced above). Relative to the wheel’s center of mass, sometimes a point on the wheel is moving in the + direction relative to the axle, and other times it is moving in a negative direction.
Let’s assume the axle is at the origin (0,0). When the point is directly in front of the axle (let’s say the point is at x=2 y=0), its motion relative to the axle becomes negative.
We now have a wheel wit
Radius of 2
Circumference of 4(pi)
Thus, the rotational vector and the linear vector have different signs. If you stand facing the wheel at the point (x=2, y=0) with the point directly in front of you, as the wheel moves 90 degrees, the axle is now at x=3.14, y=0 but the point that was in front of you is at x=3.14 y=-2
The axle has moved forward 3.14, but the point on the wheel has only moved forward 1.14 (calculated by 3.14-2). The center of the wheel moved further than the point in front of the wheel because the x value for the point was rotating in a negative direction relative to the quadrants.
Conversely, the point at (x=-2, y=0) is moving to 3.14,2 so it has moved 5.14 while the axle has moved 1.14.
Note: after a 90 degree rotation, all three dots are in a vertical line at x =3.14
These calculations are for vector addition of a linear motion and a rotational motion.
Now, replace the linear motion with another rotational motion, you have four (4) quadrants for each rotational motion causing situations where a point is accelerating dramatically when both rotational vectors are entering the (+,+) quadrant and almost appear to be standing still when the signs oppose.
In the model, the green lines of the orbiting object show a single rotation vector. The purple lines show a combination of two rotational vectors which causes the shortening and lengthening as signs change based on the quadrant a triangle point is moving into.
I will post another comment on the t=-r point because you are not looking at the right value.
As I mentioned, I am going to get to the moon in another thread, @MikeR.
In the comment above I resolved the issue of vector addition and why the views in the model are different based on number of axis of rotations.
There are three rotational values:
r = rotation in degrees about the origin
s = rotation in degrees about the center of the triangle
And then there is “t”. I created this especially for you @MikeR so you could understand why the box in your model is non-physical to the problem.
“t” = the rotation of the box, like “s” is the rotation of the triangle
In this view, I have expanded the folder for rotational degrees to you can see these three values:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/n8rf7zsosa
Focusing on the rotational motions:
Zero rotational motions:
Click “Original Triangle”
This is a view with zero rotations. The triangle is static
Click “Original Triangle” to remove it from view
One(1) rotational motion
Click “Rotating on Axis”
This is a view of the triangle remaining in place and rotating around its own internal axis
Click on “Viewing Box”
You should see the triangle rotating in the box
Click “Rotating on Axis” to remove it from view
One (1) rotational motion
Leave the “Viewing Box” showing
Click “Orbiting Figure”
This is a view of one rotational motion around the origin
Note: the view box only sees the object when it passes through. Your small window in the software incorrectly assumes you can see the object in this view constantly. That is not true in the physical world. Imagine you are at a car race on a bridge over the track. When you look down, you can only see the car every time it passes under you.
Click “Orbiting Figure” to remove it
Two (2) rotational motions
Leave the “Viewing Box” showing
Click “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting”
This is a view of two (2) rotational motions. (1 about an internal axis and 1 about the origin)
Note: again the view box would see the object only when it passes through. If it was a bridge looking down on the track, you would see the car spin out (internal axis rotation) as it flew by (external axis rotation) on the track.
Again, I built the View Boxes specifically so you would understand the flaws in your model
The degree of rotation “t” is for the Viewing Window which right now is set to -r which means it is rotating opposite the rotation around the origin
Let’s go to the moving window
Click “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting” to remove
Click “Moving Box in Motion”
The view box is moving around the origin in the opposite direction to the orbital motion (r) around the origin.
This represents the box in your model.
If I add a figure with one (1) rotation into the viewing box
Click on “Orbiting figure”
Because the view box is rotating on its own axis opposite the origin rotation, it looks like the object is rotating inside the window, but the object is rotating around the axis only and it is not rotating within the box, rather it is the box that is rotating around the object at -r
If you set the rotation t = 0, now the box is not rotating on its own axis and the view is consistent. Neither the box or the triangle are rotating on their own axis.
If you leave t=0, and…
Click “Orbiting Figure” to remove
Click “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting” now the View Box is rotating around the axis and the triangle is rotating on its own axis in the view window which is why you see the triangle rotating in the box
Conclusion
Vector addition for motion is sign dependent
Because rotational motion passes through four quadrants, the combination of two rotational motions creates multiple instances where signs are opposing
Because of the laws of vector addition, with an internal axis of rotation and an external axis of rotation, velocities for a point on the rotating object will vary (the purple lines crossing) resulting in all sides of the external object facing the external axis at some point in time.
This is immutable. Thus, there is no rotational rates for r (an external rotational axis) and s (an internal rotational axis) that when combined would allow the same side of the rotating object to point to the external axis of rotation.
“s” must be set to zero for this to occur; thus the orbiting object is not rotating.
@MikeR
Apologies, please use this link where everything is set back to the starting values:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9jlsqfrtzl
Also, in the preceding comment this reads:
“Conversely, the point at (x=-2, y=0) is moving to 3.14,2 so it has moved 5.14 while the axle has moved 1.14.”
And should read:
“Conversely, the point at (x=-2, y=0) is moving to 3.14,2 so it has moved 5.14 while the axle has moved 3.14.”
“This is immutable. Thus, there is no rotational rates for r (an external rotational axis) and s (an internal rotational axis) that when combined would allow the same side of the rotating object to point to the external axis of rotation.”
Actually, ftop_t, it is mutable. There exist rotational rates for r (an external rotational axis) and s (an internal rotational axis) that, when combined, would allow the same side of the arbitrary massive non-zero radius rotating object to point to the external axis of rotation as I’ve demonstrated using the simple, easily understood, basic desmos program steps at 3:03pm in an inertial frame which views the entire race track.
MikeR points out ftop_t is erroneously programing non-inertial frames at times & not compensating for them. ftop_t comments based on partial views are not helpful & I am sure MikeR can determine where ftop_t makes errors of omission or commission.
#4
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The last comment I want to make on this mathematical portion before I turn my barrels on the moon is two-fold:
1) Mathematical proof
The links I have published are leveraging a graphics calculator.
All formulas and variables are defined and accessible
If there are questions on the values or formulas, I am happy to answer them.
That said, mathematically, when there are two axis of rotation (internal and external to an object) given no limit on time and number of rotations, all faces of the object must point to the external axis of rotation at some point in time.
The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.
2) Inertial Frame of Reference
I will paste a quote from above from @MikeR, but this is serving as obfuscation vs. bringing clarity.
I specifically added the static and moving “View Box”s because I anticipated this issue.
The box depicted in this GIF is not an inertial frame of reference FOR THE SYSTEM.
First, @MikeR (see quote below) describes it as a “fixed orientation viewing box”. This is not the case. I created a fixed Viewing Box to show that the object would only pass through it once per orbit.
It is actually a view that places the external rotating object at the center of the universe implicitly suggesting that all other parts of the system revolve around it. This can be easily understood by looking at this view for what is missing
https://i.postimg.cc/bYLRwv23/Triangle-Rotation-CM.gif
The red line in the large frame is the radian to the external axis of rotation
There is no red line in the smaller window. If you add the redline to the smaller window, it becomes clear the external center of axis is rotating around the viewing box (although it is out of view) vs. the other way around.
For consistency in this exercise, the inertial frame needs to encompass the entire system AND the origin needs to be static. For example, if a police car is driving beside me at 60 MPH, I am traveling at (0) relative to the policeman’s inertial frame if I define it as the interior of his car. If we pass each other in opposite directions, I am going 120MPH to the policeman’s inertial frame. I sure don’t want a ticket, but relative to a larger inertial frame, we are both going 60MPH.
The only way @MikeR’s View Box makes sense is if one states, while I am flying above an object at the same orbital rate of speed, but I am constantly correcting my orientation to a remote, distant point, and the external axis that I am rotating around at the center is actually orbiting around me, then yes, the object below me (which is not rotating on its own axis within the system frame of reference) is rotating on its axis underneath me.
If that is how we are defining the system, then the sun can even rotate around the earth by choosing a specific small enough inertial frame of reference.
There are many valid reasons why physicists and astronomers use orbital parameters, which is why I deferred those topics until the mathematical proof was completed and agreed upon.
@MikeR says,
“In contrast for my depiction, the fixed orientation viewing box is an inertial reference frame that corresponds,in astronomical terms, to directions N,S,W,E (i.e. N and S defined by the celestial poles at +90 degrees and at -90 degrees respectively in Declination and E and W defined by 0 and 180 degrees Right Ascension).
Alternatively, with reference to the viewing screen of the device , the directions corresponds to the fixed top, bottom and left and right of the screen.
In either astronomical and screen coordinates, Ftops viewing box rotates as if follows the triangle, while mine in the previous comment maintains its fixed orientation as it follows the triangle.
I highly recommend Ftop reads the relevant WIKIs about inertial and non-inertial frames and why the former is nearly always preferred by physicists and astronomers to describe celestial mechanics,
This Wiki should explain the reasons for the preference
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference“
@Ball4
Here is a “link” to your comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575922
You can tell it is a link because, wait for it, you can “click” on it.
You know what your comment does not have in it, I’ll give you a minute to think… “a link”
You know why, because there is NOTHING TO CLICK ON!!
In the top right of Desmos, there is a button to “Share Graph”
It creates a…wait for it, “link”
You will notice links start with “http” in the
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ytyuhhiaro
Either you are ignorant to the term or you are incapable of this simple feat. Either way, it makes me extremely suspect of your ability to create a rotational formula that includes two (2) axis of rotation like this:
cos(s)((cos(r)(a)+(b)sin(r))-u)+((sin(r)(a)+cos(r)(b))-v)sin(s)+u
If you claim you have posted a “link” again in this thread after having been educated on what a “link” is, I am going to assume you are disingenuous and treat you accordingly.
“The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.”
It is easy to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation per orbit of the orbiting arbitrary non-zero radius object) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation for every orbit. I demonstrated that with desmos steps at 3:03pm. Thus it was easy to disprove “this” meaning ftop_t’s 1 “proof” and 2 “proof” upthread.
#5
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ftop_t 11:10am: “You will notice links start with http …”
I notice your link starts with https ftop_t. Nothing disingenuous, just a fact.
My desmos steps (provided 3:03pm) which you correctly “link” to do show all the simple desmos steps necessary for any interested reader to replicate my work disproving your work unlike your “links” which do not show all your steps. Your work in detail desmos steps is unknown which forces interested commenters (such as MikeR) to assume your steps and try to reconstruct your steps to find your faulty ones.
#6
Ball4, please stop trolling.
@Ball4
I’ll give you a few days to figure this out, but what does “https” start with? Just the first four (4) letters.
Every formula and every object (point, line, triangle square) is accessible in the interface.
It requires you to “click” on the arrow beside each folder to expand it so you can see the elements.
I grouped them because the math is too “complicated” for some people. (Notice this link starts with http)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575922
Points are ordered pairs (x,y)
Objects (line, triangle, square) are tables.
A line is a table with two rows of ordered pairs (points)
A shape is a list of ordered pairs to connect the dots making a shape
Shapes that rotate, have the rotational function in the list.
Everything is exposed and available for inspection. Here is a “link” with all folders expanded. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/obharpduon
Try and make a triangle and then try and make it rotate. All the examples are there for you to copy and use.
I expect your falsification to provide the same level of detail.
“I expect your falsification to provide the same level of detail.”
I already provided an even higher level of desmos detail than ftop_t, so don’t need a few days. I’ll just note ftop_t still has not exposed many detail steps, so NOT everything is exposed in ftop_t’s desmos work. But MikeR might still appreciate the expansion if he hadn’t done so already. I’ve already provided at 3:03pm, 4:06pm 100% of the simple desmos step details necessary for any (informed, critical) commenter to replicate my falsification of ftop_t’s 1 “proof” and 2 “proof” by demonstrating with (an even higher than ftop_t level) all the necessary desmos detail steps to prove:
There does exist an r=s where the same point (or face) of the non-zero radius rotating once on its internal axis black ball (and for any arbitrary non-zero radius object including a triangle) points inward to the center external axis for the entire orbit. That means for my desmos demo. r=s so I have shown & proven it true with desmos synchronous orbit = internal axis rate.
NB1: when ftop_t uses a rotating non-inertial frame attached to the triangle as MikeR points out, an observer in that non-inertial frame observes a non-rotating triangle where s’=0. If ftop_t uses non-inertial frame, then s’ needs to be converted by ftop_t back to s in the inertial frame.
NB2: For observers on the moon sitting in an LRV, the moon is not observed to rotate on its own axis while orbiting Earth once. For that reason, DREMT and ClintR reveal their observational position (see NB1): they also need to convert back to an inertial frame for accuracy. Sitting on the LRV in a non-inertial frame, astronauts observe the sun and stars rotating about the moon, an observation while true, still needs to be corrected back to the inertial frame (NB1) for scientific accuracy.
#7
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ftop,
As you say, with your comment “You are so close to understanding, so I am not going to give up on you. You are almost there “*, our differences are relatively minor in terms of the geometry (but not the physics).
As to who is almost there it depends on your frame of reference, your’s is geometric via the graphics calculator, mine is via code and physics. Thus is unsurprising due to our backgrounds, yours is in the cyber-security industry and mine is via 25 years as a physics academic (and 40 years as an experimental physicist) and as part of my academic role, teaching this type of material to undergrads.
To demonstrate how close our differences are I have taken the liberty of turning the output of the graphic calculator running your code (t = + r ) along side my more primitive home brew code into a gif.
https://i.postimg.cc/HkGCzMwk/Mike-R-versus-Ftop.gif
You can see that the output are pretty much the same, the only significant difference is in the first case the viewing box is fixed and the second the orientation of viewing box rotates. In both cases the viewing boxes are following the centre of mass of the triangles.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by showing a moving viewing box passing through a stationary viewing box .I suspect you are taking things way, way too literally.
In my depiction my stationary viewing box at left is purely to show that the single rotation motion can be decomposed into the motion of the centre of the mass plus rotation around the centre of mass . In my case I can have the viewing box either following the centre of mass or for clarity, stationary anywhere on the screen ( in my previous depiction, I have both). Likewise your rotating view box could be located attached to the centre of mass or standing alone anywhere you like.
Your statement “The only way MikeRs View Box makes sense is if one states, while I am flying above an object at the same orbital rate of speed, but I am constantly correcting my orientation to a remote, distant point” is curious.
If you are going to attempt to make the viewing box tangible, then the orientation if my viewing box is fixed due to the rotational inertia of the viewing box. Similarly, for the same yours will be rotating, with respect to the fixed sidearial reference frame, at a constant rotational speed and acceleration as it accompanies the triangle on its journey.
If course as the rotating viewing box has the same changing orientation as the triangle ( t = r) , the view from this box will show a non-rotating triangle. It is like the view from inside a scrambler while looking only at the person opposite. You could then make the convincing case that the scrambler was not rotating despite regurgitating** the content of your stomach.
Unfortunately my eyes glazed over*** when you launched into your convoluted commentary regarding the YouTube video about rolling motion using the centreof mass reference frame. You could use the cycloid program of your graphic calculator to make whatever point you are trying to make.
By the way I use the ScreentoGif software to capture the output. It is available for both Windows and the Mac ( which i am sure you are using as a cyber-security expert, hopefully it will run under Rosetta emulation, if you have an M1).
Finally I have to say, your comments would be greatly enhanced if you could use this software plus an image repository to make your points.
* I will ignore the condescension as it is Christmas and as the saviour said ” forgive them as they do not know what they are doing”.
** the inertial reference frame will always get you in the end.
*** due to the advanced stage of my dementia. And deteriorating eyesight ( witness my baseless accusation of shape shifting triangles while viewing the output on the minuscule screen of my mobile phone).
Postscript to the above.
Just to emphasise the point about Ftop’s rotating viewing box (I am vomiting at the thought of it) , if he went ” full scrambler mode” then viewing box’s orientation would faithfully follow the spin rate of the scrambler carriage.
The thing could be rotating at 10 times the orbital rate and Ftop’s rotating view box would demonstrate that the carriage was not rotating!
Of course the fixed orientation viewing box, plus the inertial guidance system in Ftop’s inner ear, would indicate otherwise.
What ftop_t has proven, MikeR, is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis. This of course has nothing to do with frames of reference, as the body either shows all of its sides to the external axis or it does not. It is not conditional on what reference frame you use.
It is simply a fact about rotation. One that I have been trying to get through to you for months…and from it, it follows that a change in orientation of an object does not necessarily equal axial rotation of that object. Because an object that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, also changes its orientation.
The desmos site is easily used to demonstrate ftop_t purported “proofs” are proven faulty DREMT as desmos shows there exists r=s where the arbitrary object shows only one face to the center. Same situation Tesla also proves with his wheel assembly. But that is beyond DREMT’s understanding so this blog will have to put up with DREMTs faulty dreams.
DREMT faulty dream self debunks DREMT: an object that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, also changes its orientation.
Some Christmas Day trolling from Ball4 to amuse us all.
As Ftop appears to be a busy man or woman, I think it is wise to make Ftop’s task easier to arrive to a conclusion about the Moon’s rotation, without the unnecessary waste of time and effort, trying to account for libration via a non-rotating moon. The latter would be a thankless task.
Accordingly, it might be useful to explain to Ftop, who doesn’t appear to have a strong background in physics, why physicists and astronomers much prefer inertial reference frames.
Essentially inertial reference frames directly allow energy and angular momentum calculations and also avoid the unnecessary introduction of fictitious forces, such as Coriolis and centrifugal forces ( both associated with rotating frames off reference).
To illustrate this, but at the danger of reopening a can of worms, here is another of my infamous depictions.
https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif
Case A and B both correspond to dumbbells revolving attached to a string, so only one end faces the centre of rotation during the orbit. The string breaks and the dumbbell then flies off tangentially across the screen.
The non-rotators believe for both cases the dumbbell is not rotating on its axis, and when the string breaks, the dumbbell proceeds on without rotating, as in case B.
In contrast, physicists believe that both dumbbells are rotating on their axes while constrained and the dumbbell, in case A, will then continue to rotate on its axis after the string breaks due to conservation of angular momentum* ( and of course, conservation of energy).
Ftop, I am hoping that you intuitively understand which of A and B is correct. If not, then Google “conservation of angular momentum” and “conservation of energy”.
Finally, the AstroAcademy video below provides a convincing practical demonstration of the conservation of angular momentum for this case-
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
To paraphrase Scotty, “ye cannae argue with the laws of physics” but a small select few commenters here try their damnest to do so.
As for the continual background noise emissions of the chief troll, I will endeavour to avoid interacting with him/her/it , because the troll has nothing new ** to contribute.
At least Ftop is numerate and intelligent, and may not be as overly emotionally committed to being a contrarian fruit cake.
* the angular momentum (and energy) conservation calculations before and after the string breaks are very straightforward as long as 1. you understand vector cross products, baffling otherwise. 2. and understand that the dumbbell is rotating on its axis as it orbits. It’s even more baffling if you believe otherwise.
** unless the contributions are more egregiously stupid and/or amusing than usual.
“As for the continual background noise emissions of the chief troll, I will endeavour to avoid interacting with him/her/it , because the troll has nothing new ** to contribute.”
Yes, Ball4 is getting pretty boring now. But why are you changing the subject? Ftop_t has proven that an object that moves with one face always oriented towards the center of revolution is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, and elsewhere you have conceded that this is indeed one way you can describe the motion of such an object. So why are you back on the much-discussed subject of what happens when such an object flies off at a tangent? We already know that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved, so that orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum is nothing untoward. Are you getting desperate?
No change of subject DREMT, desmos program demonstrates ftop_t proofs are faulty. Ignoring MikeR & laughably claiming “orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum” shows DREMT (MikeR’s chief cfc*) is totally desperate.
*contrarian fruit cake
Some Boxing Day trolling from Ball4 to amuse us all.
Unfortunately I have to break my self imposed prohibition of dealing with the Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team of Contrarian Fruit Cakes. I choked on my wheatbix this morning when I saw DREMToCFC’s attempt at humour, which I have to admit was pretty funny*.
At least he chose the right option, case A ( unlike the other C.F.C.s )but made the following nonsense claim –
“We already know that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved, so that orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum is nothing untoward”.
Here is the real story as distinct from DRIMM’s untoward Fairy Tale.
For the following- w is the angular velocity, R is the orbital radius of the centre of mass , I is the moment of inertia about the centre of mass and Vcm is the velocity of the centre of mass.
From Conservation of Energy
While rotating-
E tot = 1/2 m. R^2. w^2 + 1/2 I.w^2
After the string breaks
E tot = 1/2 m. Vcm^2 + 1/2 I.w^2
From Conservation of Linear Momentum for the Centre of Mass
m.Vcm = m. R. w
The velocity ( technically speed ) of the centre of mass after the string breaks is the same as it is while orbiting.
Conservation of Angular Momentum
While orbiting –
L tot= L orb + L rot
L orb = m.(Vcm X R) = m.Vcm .R = m. R w ^2 (as Vcm = R.w)
L rot = I.w
L tot = m. R w ^2 + I.w
While moving tangentially –
L tot = m . Vcm . R sin ( theta) + I. w
theta is the angle between the centre of mass and the object as it moves it tangentially ( simple geometry demonstrates that the term R. sin(theta) = constant).
The only solution, that is not nonsensical**, is that the dumbbell is rotating on it’s axis while it is orbiting i.e. I.w is not equal to zero.
My default assumption is that DREMToCFC will not have the basic maths*** skill to understand any of this. Hopefully Ftop will soon reappear to assist him on his journey from denial to acceptance.
* physicists tend to be easily humoured.
** nonsense solutions such as the spontaneous creation of energy are highly amusing but are a choking hazard.
*** we got a wonderful example of DREMToCFC’s math skills, months ago, when dealing with thermodynamic problems.
Where am I spontaneously creating energy!? All I said was that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved (which is true) and that before the string breaks you have only orbital angular momentum, and after it breaks you have linear momentum and spin angular momentum.
DREMkopf. Why am I not surprised that you don’t understand the equations?
Conservation of linear momentum means the speed of the centre of mass, after the dumbell heads off of tangentially, is the same as the orbital speed of the centre of mass prior to the duumbbell being untethered.
Therefore the K.E. of the centre of mass of the dumbbell is the same after it is untethered as it is before.
The dumbbell, after it heads off on a tangent, has rotational energy about an axis through the centre of mass. If the dumbbell wasn’t rotating on its axis before it headed off, then this energy was spontaneously created on breaking of the tether!
Personally I think you are definitely at the end of your tether.
Just check the equations, if you don’t believe me (the conservation of angular momentum equations are there for completeness, so don’t be intimidated) .
It you still don’t believe me just wait for Ftop to also explain it to you.
Ftop_t has already proven that an object that is moving as per the dumbbell before the string is cut, is not rotating on its own axis but merely rotating about an external axis. So whatever happens to the dumbbell after the string is cut does not affect that proof. As he said:
“The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.”
Regarding your point on conservation of energy, I go with Tesla’s explanation from his third paper:
“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.”
The supposed “axial rotation” of the dumbbell before the string is cut is merely an abstract conception. The energy is there because the object is rotating about an external axis. It does not mean that the object is rotating about its own center of mass. In a way it is like breaking down the motion into a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass again. You do so for the sake of these calculations only, in no true physical sense is the dumbbell actually rotating on its own axis.
Nobody is saying energy is being spontaneously created. The energy was there before, but only because the object was rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
One way to disprove ftop_t is to use desmos site to discover there exists values for the two rotations (“r” = “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero and which shows only one (1) rotation) per orbit where the one side of the rotating once on its own axis object points to the external axis of rotation.
DREMT (not nobody) is writing energy is being spontaneously created when spontaneously spinning up the falsely claimed nonrotating on its own axis object after string cut.
More festive trolling from Ball4, to amuse us all.
DREM aka C.F.C,
If you want to have an argument with the Laws of Physics, which ones do you want to dispense with? Conservation of momentum or conservation of energy? Your choice. Maybe you want to go full metal fruit cake and dispense with both?
As your comments become even more ridiculous, why don’t you patiently wait for your saviour Ftop to arrive? Just a suggestion.
p.s. I find it extremely sad that you continually undermine Tesla’s reputation by reminding everyone of his , to put it politely, “eccentricities”. To quote Tesla’s desperate claim, that the energy of axial rotation only exists when it is convenient to support an argument, is particularly sad.
Oh well,if only Tesla had stuck to his area of expertise or had seen an orbital sander in action.
MikeR has no response to the 6:34 AM comment, and just continues with his misrepresentations and false accusations. Oh well, his loss.
@MikeR
A larger response went into the magical “moderation” land
Succinctly, this side-by-side is nothing like each other:
https://i.postimg.cc/HkGCzMwk/Mike-R-versus-Ftop.gif
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fcdlmo0vwp
The radian (redline) in your GIF intercepts all parts of the square view window. the Desmos you used shows the radian (redline) only intercepting one side of the square.
This happens when t=0
Your view is the same as:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ym5oyak1yd
In this view, the radian in Desmos intercepts all parts of teh square. This happens when t=-r. The window is rotating the opposite of the orbit…
What your GIF demonstrates is that you have:
Rotated the view window the opposite of the orbit
Caused the external axis to orbit around the triangle
The radian (redline) is rotating around the triangle vs. being fixed.
Welcome back Ftop!
However I am extremely puzzled by your response.
“The radian (redline) in your GIF intercepts all parts of the square view window. the Desmos you used shows the radian (redline) only intercepting one side of the square.
This happens when t=0”
and
“What your GIF demonstrates is that you have:
Rotated the view window the opposite of the orbit
Caused the external axis to orbit around the triangle
The radian (redline) is rotating around the triangle vs. being fixed.”
Yes Ftop your geometry is spot on, but your point being? I did point out above, the fundamental difference being the difference in orientational behaviour of our depictions. Did you not read this?
However to emphasise, I think we have excellent agreement that,
1. your illustrations employ a viewbox that moves with the centre of mass and hence rotates in phase with the rotating triangle and hence the triangle is stationary and
2. my depictions employ a fixed orientation viewing box that moves with the centre of mass of triangle and hence the triangle rotates.
I have some suggestions which you may find useful.
Firstly examine the simplest model which is geometrically correct and see if your conclusions also comport with the Laws of Physics . There is no point launching into the minutae of more complex models if you fall at the first hurdle.
Additionally have you,
(a) read up on the difference between fixed inertial and rotating non- inertial frames of reference?
(b) worked out the difficulties of dealing with elliptical orbits with your simple circular rotation models ?
(c) as a corollary to (b) developed a working model that explains libration for a non-rotating moon?
(d) examined the tangential motion of a ball on a string, after the constraint of the string is removed*? If so the leader of the team of contrarian fruit cakes** urgently needs your assistance.
If you follow my suggestions then you may,
(i) not waste your time on nonsense when your time could be more frutfully spent on computer security issues that are currently a huge issue.
(ii) learnt some useful physics. In particular the lesson that geometry will get only get you so far, if you don’t have a good grasp of the underlying physics.
(iii) avoid ending up with some very odd bed fellows. Being thought of as just another crank could be very destabilising for you.
* you might need to read up some physics about the conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum.
** memberships of the C.F.C. are going free as Gordon and Clint have graduated to Contrarian Fruit Loop status with their wholesale destruction of the laws of physics.
@MikeR says,
“2. my depictions employ a fixed orientation viewing box that moves with the centre of mass of triangle and hence the triangle rotates.”
Yes, that is exactly what you did and that is why it is wrong.
You have taken an object that is orbiting and:
1. Stopped an orbiting object in a box
2. Made the box look stationary when it is orbiting
3. Depicted the box as fixed when it is rotating backward
By moving all the fixed positions around the object while instead holding it in a fixed position inside the box, the triangle is now the center of motion.
By stopping the orbital motion and making it appear fixed in a box, you are incorrectly taking a long circular movement (orbiting) and making it look it is spinning in place.
That is why I created a FIXED box, to show the triangle is only in it for a short period of it orbital journey. I created the moving box to show that you are taking an orbital motion, eliminating it, and replacing it with an axial rotation in a FIXED box that DOES NOT EXIST.
You can’t eliminate a valid orbital motion, by moving the box around it and pretending the object in the box is spinning.
If I stop the earth’s rotation and orbit, I can model the sun revolving around the earth 365 times in a year but it is not physically accurate to the actual motion, yet I have proved the sun orbits the earth?!?
You further state:
“Firstly examine the simplest model which is geometrically correct and see if your conclusions also comport with the Laws of Physics”
You have stopped the orbital motion of an orbiting object, created a view only available if you follow an orbiting object around its path but rotate the view negatively to the orbital motion, and made the external axis rotate around the object.
That is not “geometrically correct”
I tried to avoid the conflation these other items will cause:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-577061
but it is clear these are items are being introduced to avoid the obvious mathematical reality that two rotational motions (internal and external) causes situations where the signs for the rotational vectors are opposing, and by basic vector addition this means that the object rotating on an internal axis will have locations that move away from the center of rotation while others move toward it meaning that it cannot rotate on its axis and keep the same fixed side pointing to the external axis of rotation.
Time to move to the moon…(in a fresh thread below)
Ftop, I think you really need to think about and learn about reference frames, particularly centre of mass reference frames.
To encourage you to learn some physics, here is an article from M.I.T. that explains the concept beautifully and also includes an example calculation of the total angular momentum of the Earth –
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/Presentations/Presentation_W11D1.pdf
(see pages 16 to 19).
The calculation is done separately for both the orbital component and the axial rotation component of the Earth’s motion using the centre of mass concept. The orbital angular momentum is calculated from the motion of the centre of mass of the Earth around the Earth/Sun barycentre and the calculation of the rotational angular momentum around an axis through the Earth’s centre of mass.
Here is a physicist’s similar calculation for the Moon/Earth system.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-around-the-earth/answer/Paul-Filmer?ch=8&share=8160ef95&srid=TubC
Now with reference to viewing boxes. Ftop, If you are unhappy with stationary non rotating viewing boxes then this is your choice and , when viewing my depictions, you can choose to avert your gaze away from the viewing box or cover it with your hand.
Because of your strenuous objections, I can instead use a set of axes labelled with directions that follow the triangle, similar to the axes that follow the “moon” in this depiction.
https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif
If this still upsets you then I suggest you ask cartographers to remove their directional roses that are usually drawn on a map at omly one location on the map. These implicitly “follow” the hiker from place to place despite the chances of the hiker actually passing through the geographical location corresponding to the centre of the rose is incredibly small.
Do I need to spell out how this relates to your argument about the triangle actually physically passing through the viewing box?
I hope not.
p.s, if you can follow the M.I.T. article above, then tackling the physics of a dumbbell on a string should be relatively easy. Ftoo, as you seem to be intelligent, I am confident that the “penny will drop”.
Here is the relevant depiction.
https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif
MikeR is still lost in “reference frames”. There is simply no hope for him. He is utterly ineducable.
Flop_t’s proof has nothing to do with reference frames. It transcends that completely. Once again, what ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
Once again DREMT, what ftop_t has shown is proven wrong by just 5 simple desmos steps in its inertial frame, that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show only one of its sides to the external axis if r=s, whilst it moves and NOT all of them as DREMT incorrectly writes.
Again, 100% of the desmos steps:
First click on the 3 bars top left. Then click on: new blank graph. Then click on: Trigonometry: Unit Circle, open graph and click arrow to start a=30 moving about on the circular orbit for r=s and observe the body, a black ball w/radius nonzero rotating on its own axis once showing same face to center for the entire orbit.
Yes DREMT, I doI know these simple desmos steps are proven beyond DREMT’s (the chief cfc) ability to understand but (as I am ever hopeful) not ftop_t’s understanding.
Nobody on the planet would be dumb enough to fall for Ball4’s nonsense.
Thanks for tacitly agreeing DREMT can’t find fault with my desmos work, thus DREMT’s position remains just as faulty as ftop_t’s faulty “proofs”. This situation will remain & be reinforced each time DREMT posts a comment without finding fault in my desmos work.
I urge you both to read and understand MikeR’s links and work to come to a non-faulty understanding of the subject matter.
All Ball4’s "work" amounts to is finding the quickest and simplest way to animate an object moving in a circle, then simply declaring with absolutely no evidence that it is rotating about both an internal and an external axis. You are fooling nobody Ball4. You are simply a pathetic troll.
Thanks again for tacitly confirming DREMT can’t find any fault in my desmos step work. Along with confirming DREMT isn’t competent enough to implement the steps correctly to see the desmos inertial frame construction of a circular orbit with r=s non-zero & observe the body, a black ball w/radius nonzero, rotating on its own axis once showing same face to center for its entire orbit.
You are simply a pathetic troll.
Three tacit confirmations now DREMT found no fault in my desmos work. I expect even more tacit confirmations from DREMT. I urge both DREMT and ftop_t to read and understand MikeR’s links and work to come to a non-faulty understanding of the desmos steps & subject matter I’ve described several times now.
Ball4 tacitly confirms that he is simply a pathetic troll.
Ball4,
I have got to admit I am starting to lose hope that Ftop will realise his lack of physics (and astronomy) dooms his quest to prove, via his basic geometric approach, that the moon does not rotate on its axis in the appropriate inertial reference frame.
His avoidance manoeuvre illustrates this –
“I tried to avoid the conflation these other items will cause:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-577061
“but it is clear these are items are being introduced to avoid the obvious mathematical reality…… ”
If I was in Ftop’s unfortunate position, I too , would avoid like the plague, any discussions about elliptical orbits, libration, angular momentum, rotational and orbital energy, conservation laws etc.. or anything to do with physics at all.
If Ftop wants to continue to deny reality, I can continue to provide further depictions.
Just in case, as a pre-emptive manoeuvre, I have modified my triangle depictions to remove any viewing boxes ( just replaced them with local axes).
https://i.postimg.cc/qRMPFBtg/Rotating-Triangle-N-1.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/MTPCJkR5/Rotating-Triangle-N-0.gif
Ftop, if he ever manages to read and understand the physics material in my previous comment, could work out which of the two depictions above has the greater total energy and angular momentum.
Finally Ball4, do you think there’s anything else that could convince someone who is steadfastly determined not understand the physics?
Maybe a practical demonstration? I may be forced to dig out my YouTube video of a smart phone rotating on its internal axis when placed on a turntable.
Ftop, being such a concrete thinker that he cannot handle abstractions, such as viewing boxes or axes that “follow” moving objects, might appreciate a more practical demonstration of simultaneous orbital and axial rotation.
Unfortunately my turntable doesn’t do elliptical motion very well, so the demonstration will need to be restricted to circular orbital motion.
p.s. I am attempting to minimise engagement with the Glorious Leader of the Dr Roy’s Team of contrarian fruit cakes. As anyone who exchanges comments with the Leader quickly realises, it is a total waste of time and he/she/it is a total waste of space.
Once again, what ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.
MikeR, DREMT will never cease to be the contrarian, it is what DREMT does. Has for years. ftop_t might have a chance but slim.
Yes Ball4,
Ftop looks like he might be heading down the rabbit hole. It is a pity as he appeared to have sufficient intelligence not to fall for the snake oil.
However there could be some silver lining to this cloud.
Due to the Arecibo disaster, the SETI project has been dealt a significant blow. They could now scale back their search for intelligent life and look for something much closer to home, such as within the confines of the team of contrarian fruit cakes.
A great test for SETI would be if they could detect Ftop amongst the unintelligible background noise of DREM*, Clint, Gordon and Bill.
DREM’s highly repetitive signal could be filtered out with a notch filter. The other signals tend to be less repetive but are just as equally thought disordered.
Once again, what ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. A link back to this discussion and a repetition of this comment will be provided in every future discussion of this topic, until such time as you eventually concede the truth.
Hmmm, it appears my notch filter needs to be tuned. The repetition of the leader of the lunatics seems to be only partially attenuated. Could be spectral leakage?
Hopefully this can be sorted before he goes totally non linear.
MikeR childishly puts his fingers in his ears and hums loudly, trying to drown out the truth. He has no response because he knows what I am saying has been proven correct, and that is a huge blow to his side of the argument. He is too immature to ever admit defeat, and too emotionally invested in his arguments to ever concede there might be a problem with them. He is simply a pathetic troll.
DREMT: “(MikeR) has no response…”
Actually MikeR has many responses in this, the longest subthread in recent memory so it is the Chief cfc DREMT humming with fingers in his ears. DREMT still has found no flaws in MikeR’s work or my desmos steps while flaws in ftop_t’s work have been repeatedly pointed out.
MikeR has certainly written a lot, but he always carefully avoids responding to what ftop_t has shown, which is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
And no, nobody has shown any flaws in ftop_t’s proof. Ball4 simply lies like the pathetic troll he is.
When prodded, DREMT has to admit MikeR has, in fact, responded.
Still DREMT can find no flaws in my desmos steps which prove ftop_t’s work is faulty. MikeR also showed ftop_t writing about an accelerating frame as if it were an inertial frame. DREMT wouldn’t know that because DREMT wrongly doesn’t understand MikeR has carefully responded to ftop_t in this subthread by DREMT wrongly writing: “(MikeR) always carefully avoids responding to what ftop_t has shown”
It has nothing to do with reference frames. What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. This will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread, even if we are all still here next Christmas.
ftop_t’s flaw does have to do with reference frames as I noted. That caused ftop_t to write an object was not rotating on its own axis in the accelerating frame when the desmos program showed the object is rotating on its own axis in the inertial frame. This is the same general mistake continually committed by DREMT & ClintR along with some others just as MikeR carefully responded to ftop_t above in this subthread.
I will also note DREMT still has not found a flaw in my desmos work proving ftop_t’s work is flawed.
If an orbiting object keeps the same side of the body continually oriented towards the center of revolution, the only way you can describe that object as “rotating on its own axis” is if you break down the motion into a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. Regardless of reference frame. If you do so, then you do not have two axes of rotation. A translation plus a rotation does not equal two rotations.
What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. This will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread, even if we are all still here next Christmas.
DREMT, just pay attention to ftop_t at 1:52pm: “I have two separate rotational values:
r = rotation speed around the origin
s = rotation speed around the internal axis”
desmos program inertial frame steps show for r=s, one face of the rotating on its own axis once per orbit object faces the origin for the entire orbit. Sure, repeat your flawed Chief cfc position until next Christmas for the free, hugely laughable entertainment of some blog readers.
What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. This will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread, even if we are all still here next Christmas.
Thank-you Ball4 for effectively dealing with boringly repetitive comments from the chief perpetrator of boringly repetitive comments.
Do we need to descend to the same level of argument by repetition? If so, here are some points that can be cut and pasted if necessary.
1. A simple rotation can be performed by one simple rotation. This is agreed by all as it is truism.
2. The same rotation can be broken up into ( or constructed from) an almost infinite possibilities of sub rotations and/or translations*. This is what is disputed by those who , as a flexible ** matter of faith, believe point 1 rules out any other possibilities.
3. The most relevant case in terms of the physics is a translation ( linear, curvilinear) of the centre of mass plus motion around the centre of mass . Examples are parabolic motion for a diver, rolling and/or sliding on a flat surface, rolling and/or sliding on a curved surface such as a circle and of course orbital plus axial rotation motion.
4. Underlying the Ftop dispute is an assumption that the Earth/Moon system can be treated as a rigid body. If this assumption is false*** then points 1 to 3 are moot.
5. Additionally, the concrete thinking that, for example, because an object that is rigidly mounted to a rotating base (and of course is not rotating with respect to the base), means it cannot be rotating through an internal axis with respect to the fixed external environment , is somewhat out of date**** ( by several centuries) .
* the term translation can be simply thought of a change in co -ordinates of an object, but it sometimes conflated, as short hand, with linear translation.
** flexible as sometimes it is asserted to give the impression that that only one possibility exists for rotation but on other occasions, discussion veers towards semantic definitions of translation.
*** discussion as to why a rigid body description, or even as a vague analogy, is totally inappropriate has already been extensively covered . For the latter see earlier discussions about argumentation via false analogies.
**** News travels slowly in some parts ( in extremely dense materials and individuals , information conveyed at the speed of light , can be transmitted very slowly).
p.s. the main form of argumentation by the chief culprit at large is repetition of assertions, as if this makes them more convincing, and via “last word wins the argument” that are employed by “total losers”. Expect confirmation of DREM’s status to follow.
“1. A simple rotation can be performed by one simple rotation. This is agreed by all as it is truism.”
You keep writing this out wrong, deliberately. What is being argued is a motion in which an orbiting object keeps the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution can be described as one simple rotation. And no, it is not agreed by all. Ball4 disagrees, for instance.
“2. The same rotation can be broken up into ( or constructed from) an almost infinite possibilities of sub rotations and/or translations*. This is what is disputed by those who , as a flexible ** matter of faith, believe point 1 rules out any other possibilities.”
False. According to various sources, already presented and discussed, a pure rotation is not to be treated as a general plane motion. But if you were to erroneously do so, that is a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. In other words, you do not have an option to break it up into two rotations. If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the orbiting object from the center of revolution. Fact.
3. Already discussed under 2.
“4. Underlying the Ftop dispute is an assumption that the Earth/Moon system can be treated as a rigid body. If this assumption is false*** then points 1 to 3 are moot.”
No. Only if the moon cannot be treated as a rigid body would points 1 to 3 be moot. It can. So points 1-3 are not moot.
“5. Additionally, the concrete thinking that, for example, because an object that is rigidly mounted to a rotating base (and of course is not rotating with respect to the base), means it cannot be rotating through an internal axis with respect to the fixed external environment , is somewhat out of date**** ( by several centuries) .”
I refer you to my responses to points 1-4.
As we await for Ftop to resurface and as the team leader of the confused contrarian nut jobs is not simply repeating him or herself, I will deign to respond to him.
My statement that a simple single rotation can be described as a simple single rotation is not disputed by anybody. This is true for a single point. Likewise for an object, such as a triangle, the single rotation as Ftop has demonstrated, will mean the orientation of the triangle will be fixed with respect to the centre of rotation. Absolutely no one is disputing this and I cannot see how anyone could distort Ball4’s comments to suggest otherwise.
What we are trying to get through to your thick skull is that the single rotation can ALSO ( sorry to shout) be described in more than one motion.
For instance, Ball4’s comment that s=r for Ftop’s desmos code demonstrates that for two motions ( axial rotation , s at the same same rate as orbital rotation , r )the triangle has fixed orientation with respect to the centre of the orbit ( and rotates with respect to the external reference frame).
If anyone can disprove this then they deserve the accolades of the scientific community, so DREM let’s see the details of your disproof. If you cannot provide details then your latest comments can be safely added to your ever expanding collection of b.s..
With regard to your semantic confusion about translation and rotation etc..
The Moon, if it is not rotating on its axis, is moving in curvilinear translation , as all points move in unison as it orbits, transcribing two overlapping circles of equal radius as shown in the depiction below for N = 0. This type of motion also describes sliding on a surface.
https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
If the Moon is rotating on its axis as it orbits then its motion is general plane motion as the outer and inner points move af different speeds . The outer points and inner points transcribe concentric circles that have different radii and hence different perimeters – see N = 1 in the above depiction. This is similar to rolling motion, where the point of contact of the wheel with the ground is momentarily stationary , while at the same moment, the opposite side moves twice as fast as the centre of the wheel.
This general plane motion for the Moon can accordingly be decomposed into rotation of the centre of mass of the Moon about a fixed axis at the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system plus pure rotation of the Moon about an axis through its centre of mass.
MikeR, I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response. There is simply no point talking to you because you twist, distort, and misrepresent everything. You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever come across. If the object were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the object from the external axis. That is what ftop_t has proven. I know for a fact that is correct.
“I know for a fact that is correct.”
desmos program steps prove that what DREMT “knows” as “fact” is incorrect. Or DREMT would use the program to show otherwise.
Other than that, the gist of 8:47am DREMT comment simply boils down to: DREMT admits DREMT can’t prove MikeR is wrong.
It is MikeR and Ball4 that need to disprove ftop_t. So far they have not done so.
What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.
No , Ftop definitely has not disproved anything. All he has proved is what Bill4 has said repeatedly, and I am of course in total agreement, for two independent motions (when s = r ) the centre of the the orbit sees only one side.
In this case the triangle’s orientation is fixed with respect to the centre as it orbits see –
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qzzlfflonx
DREM, what is actually wrong with this desmos depiction?
Fascinated to see your mathematical analysis?
No, MikeR…that is one motion. One single rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the triangle.
MikeR here’s a hint: DREMT simply reveals the location of DREMT’s observation.
You two are pathetic, seriously. Why do I waste my time?
Seriously, why DOES DREMT waste time not making progress learning about correct orbital mechanics, inertial and accelerating ref. frames, and desmos site use? It really is a mystery. But always great entertainment.
#9
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
There are obvious reasons why DREM is incapable of these things.
When you put him on a spot he will run for cover with just a repetition of his assertion or some other decoy manoeuvre.
For example I will now ask DREM, what specifically is wrong with Ftop’s code for motion around two separate axes with the axial rotation (s) equal to the orbital rotation (r)?
p.s. as a reminder to DREM, this version of Ftop’s code is not simulating motion around just one axis, so his standard repetive answer will be, once again, inappropriate.
From ftop_t:
“That said, mathematically, when there are two axis of rotation (internal and external to an object) given no limit on time and number of rotations, all faces of the object must point to the external axis of rotation at some point in time. The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.”
Why on Earth are you pretending that ftop_t’s code disproves himself!?
More from ftop_t:
“Adding a little more features to this graphic calculator view:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
I have two separate rotational values
r = rotation speed around the origin
s = rotation speed around the internal axis
With these separate values. Anyone can to go to line 29 and alter the rotation speed of the internal axis.
Initially, s = r since the counter argument is that the rotation around the external axis and the rotation of the internal axis are synchronized. As demonstrated above, all points of the triangle would point inward at some distance on the orbit
Setting s = 0, the orbiting triangle keeps the same point facing the origin (my argument that the object has one rotation around an external axis
Setting s = -r, the orbiting triangle has to rotate at a negative rate equal to the orbital rate to keep the same point of the triangle on the top
Setting s = 365r would model the earth rotating around the sun. Don’t get dizzy.”
Why on Earth? Discover because ftop_t’s code already has been disproved: “The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero…”
Discover r=s=1 (meaning 1 orbiting object revolution on its own axis per 1 orbit) disproves ftop_t as the desmos program demonstrates.
Wrong, Ball4. Go to ftop_ts link:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
With r=s, the triangle shows all of its sides to the center of revolution.
Set s=0, the triangle shows always the same side to the center of revolution.
DREMT, MikeR’s Chief cfc, simply copies a link that is known to be faulty being unable on DREMT’s own to correctly use the desmos program. Try again DREMT. Show your own correct desmos step work as I have done.
Ftop_t’s link has not been shown to be faulty. Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT uses desmos program that he doesn’t understand, and can’t use, and expects to be believed. That approach won’t work DREMT.
To disprove ftop_t just set r=s=1 since neither are zero just as ftop_t claimed would disprove his implementation.
#8
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Having finalized the issue of internal vs. external rotational movement; it is time to start addressing the various other attempts at obfuscation, namely:
Libration
Elliptical Orbiting
Barycenter
Cassini Laws
Axial tilt
Orbital elements
Nomenclature
Equivalence
Since the elliptical argument was referenced here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570667
I am going to reply under that post to address libration and Elliptical Orbits
Bravo Ftop,
Your totally physics free geometry is impressive!
Well done, your desmos version almost matches my depiction for one axial rotation per orbit except for the major problem that the Earth (technically the Earth/Moon barycentre, but at this scale the distinction is negligible) is not at one of the focii of the ellipse, which it needs physically to be.
See my depiction below for s =r (N =s/r =1 in my nomenclature) for an elliptical orbit with e = 0.745 (a =15, b = 10).
https://i.postimg.cc/ys4s98qx/Ftop-ellipse-s-equals-r.gif
For s = 0 (N = 0) in contrast ,
https://i.postimg.cc/333hSfxH/Ftop-Ellipse-s-equals-0.gif
Note, it is trivial beyond belief to show that the Moon is, or isn’t, rotating on the axis that passes through the centre of the moon, by reference to to the Cartesian axes , x= m and y=n !!!!
Either the axes corresponding to m and n = 0 or alternatively m = Xcm, n =Ycm corresponding to the Cartesian coordinates of the centre of the mass. This is just simple translation of the coordinate system!
Finally Ftop, the waste of your valuable time constructing geometric models could be avoided , if you understood the physics. In particular the physics of angular momentum, rotational energy and the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.
There is so much material available on the web, I have no idea why you have avoided it like the plague*?
* another word of advice, apparently red pills don’t work against Covid.
MikeR is still lost in reference frames!
DREMT still doesn’t understand frames of reference and that every move is relative!
Wrong, I understand reference frames just fine. That’s how I know they have nothing to do with the issue. It all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.
Orbital motion is ftop_t’s “r” with or without axial rotation “s” in the desmos inertial frame or “s prime” in ftop_t’s rotating frame as motion is relative so frames do matter. DREMT’s claim is faulty because:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-580401
It all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.
Using “s” or “s prime” correctly (not confusing them as did ftop_t) is necessary because using an accelerating frame changes “s” to “s prime”. Motion is relative. DREMT still avoids reality.
It definitely all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.
Ball4 10:01 AM
Bingo!
DREMT 10:08 AM
Bingo!
DREM – “Wrong, I understand reference frames just fine.”
Another evidence free assertion from DREM, who claims to know the difference between an inertial and a non-inertial frame of reference.
If he actually did, he would know how to apply it to this situation.
For the purposes of clarification, can DREM explain, in his own words, the difference between a rotating reference frame and an inertial fixed reference frame and the relevant physics* as applied to the rotating triangle and to the Moon?
p.s. I fully expect DREM’s standard avoidance manoeuvres, such as ” I have already explained it” ( no he hasn’t) or link back to some vaguely related comment(s).
* you are allowed to use equations.😅
I have nothing to prove to you.
MikeR, DREMT is correct at 5:44pm: DREMT has nothing. DREMT is just an entertainer in a 3-ring circus.
I have nothing to prove to you either, Ball4.
It all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.
DREMT has already proved to me to be a great entertainer. Would DREMT like left, right or center ring next?
What I’m saying is correct, though…and there are even Spinners that agree. Oh well.
Yes, what DREMT has written 5:44pm is indeed correct: DREMT has nothing. All the spinners agree.
No, that it all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.
@DREMT
You are being very generous in reducing the dispute down to:
@DREMT says: “No, that it all boils down to whether you describe orbital motion without axial rotation as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. Thats all there is to it.”
There are fundamental problems with the approach that says it is a translation and an internal axis rotation. Namely:
#1 Rotations = 1 NOT 2
Mathematically, it is not possible to employ an orbit and an internal axis rotation. There is still only (1) rotation (when the spinners have claimed incessantly there are two (2) rotations), AND the rotational location is being moved from an external point to inside an object (internal axis)
#2 The translation-then-rotate model eliminates the orbital portion of the process. Orbital motion is being eliminated and replaced with a non-repeatable process (each translation is unique)
3. The CM is now situated in a rotating object of minimal mass relative to the Earth/Moon combined syste. Basically, the moon is the center of the combined system (the “primary” in the models designed by @MikeR).
https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif
and this triangle GIF
https://i.postimg.cc/bYLRwv23/Triangle-Rotation-CM.gif
In these views, the small boxes point to a distant object (Earth) and makes the earth rotate around the moon…
“An orbit has two sets of Keplerian elements depending on which body is used as the point of reference. The reference body (usually the most massive) is called the primary, the other body is called the secondary. The primary does not necessarily possess more mass than the secondary, and even when the bodies are of equal mass, the orbital elements depend on the choice of the primary.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
This view is similar to the GIFs that @MikeR has been posting
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jwwchs7eia
As can be seen from the orange line.
Go to Line 5 and turn the rotation on. In order to mirror the small boxes; the earth has to revolve around the moon as can be seen by the orange line pointing out from the moon.
Now reset the degree of rotation (Line 5) = 0
Go to Line 2 and set A=10 to put the moon back out to its orbital path.
While a translation and axial rotation is an equivalent way to move to a specific location; it is still a single rotation model.
To translate the moon 180 degrees from its location, the process would be:
Go to Line 2 and move it from +10 to -10
Go to Line 35 and rotate the internal axis 180 degrees
A translation & a rotation on its axis.
The problem is the orbital location as designated by the orange line still points to point (10,0)
Reset A=10, and Line 5 and Line 35 to zero
Now break the translation up into parts.
Change A=0
Rotate Line 5 180 degrees
Change A back to 10
The shape has translated from (10,0) to (-10,0) and rotated 180 degrees; but the orbital rotation has been used as an internal axis rotation
There is only one rotation.
If you set the rotation in Line 5 to 120 degrees.
In order to translate that movement to match the 120 degree rotation, you have to move the object from (10,0) to (-5,-6.928)
While the translation and internal axis rotation is equivalent to a rotation of 120 degrees around an external axis (orbit); it is not a model of the actual movement.
I’m always being generous with them, ftop_t, and they still give me nothing but grief. Oh well.
Good points, though.
ftop_t debunked her https://tinyurl.com/ftop-debunked although I doubt he(she)’ll understand it.
That’s funny, Tyson – ftop_t was literally just discussing what’s wrong with treating the movement as a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass. Then you come along repeating that same mistake.
@Tyson
You are completely missing the point.
The arc traveled by a point rotating on an external axis will equal
(t) = theta equals angle measured in radians
(r-B/origin) = radius of point B from center of rotation (0,0)
s = (r-B/origin) x (t)
If the object is rotating on its own access, there will be another angle
(g) = gamma equals angle measured in radians of the rotation around point A (internal axis)
(r-B/A) = radius from point B to A
s1 = (r-B/A) x (g)
If it is a synchronous rotation, we add the two independent rotations (external = s & internal = s1)
s + s1 = ((r-B/origin) x (t)) + ((r-B/A) x (g))
As your diagram proves, B has traversed an arc of length s and not s + s1
Therefore, either r-B/A must equal ZERO or (g) must equal zero
Since it is obvious B/A is not equal to zero, the rotation of B around A must be zero.
You have to PROVE that B has traversed some arc length (r-B/origin) x (theta) otherwise there is no rotation about the axis centered at “A”
“You have to PROVE that B has traversed some arc length (r-B/origin) x (theta) otherwise there is no rotation about the axis centered at A”
Should read:
You have to PROVE that B has traversed some arc length OTHER THAN (r-B/origin) x (theta), if you cannot, than there is no rotation about the axis centered at A
ftop_t 10:05 AM, you are missing the point that frame AX’Y’ is rotating and therefore to an observer located at point A, point B is stationary, in this case. However to an observer at point O and relative to stationary frame OXY, point B is rotating with angular speed omega.
It perhaps is confusing that I show the axes X-Y (dashed) after translating point A by (theta)(rA). The intent there was to emphasize that frame AX’Y’ has in fact rotated by theta degrees to this instant in time.
@Tyson
I don’t disagree. But the argument has been that:
The moon is rotating on its axis (independent of observational location)
The moon is orbiting about the Earth-Moon barycenter
Two rotations (internal and external)
Mathematically, this means:
(Assuming your point B is in quadrant 1)
B is rotating (theta) from X(A/Y) toward point O (1 rotation)
while it is rotating (theta) from the (x,0) axis toward the (0,y) axis (2nd rotation)
My point has ALWAYS been that mathematically, there can be only 1 rotation.
How you perceive that 1 rotation:
Standing at O
Standing at A
Looking at the entire X/Y graph
These are just efforts to obfuscate the determination of number of axis of rotation.
The reference frames can create different visual representations, but in NO CASE, does the frame of reference introduce a second rotation.
ROTATIONAL MATRIX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix
Because rotational movement changes signs based on the quadrant, it seemed obvious to me that you would have situations with two (2) rotations (external at O, and internal at A) where signs for a rotation from a given coordinate axis (let’s say X) to another point based on (theta) degrees would be opposing (r1 – negative, r2 – positive) or (r1 – positive, r2 – negative) meaning the point on the orbiting object (point B) would be getting closer or farther to the external axis (let’s call it O like in your diagram) than the designated internal axis (A) remained to that same center of rotation (again, let’s call it O).
I explored this with DESMOS to validate my assumption and posted multiple examples verifying it.
Everything since then has been obfuscation to avoid the acceptance that there can be ONLY ONE active axis of rotation and it is located at point O.
FRAME OF REFERENCE
Some counter-examples have even put the object (the moon) at the center of the universe to prove it is rotating.
ORBITAL PARAMETERS
Translations for orbital objects are necessary because all parts of the universe are in motion. It is easier to translate to where a point will be because the sun is moving in the Milky Way, the earth is moving about the sun, the moon is orbiting the earth.
All these factors make a simple 2D model insufficient to predict a location; but those parameters describe a place at an epoch (specific point in time)
I understand why astronomers translate and rotate to IDENTIFY a relative location in an ever changing universe
Reducing the problem to a simple MODEL of the Earth/Moon system where the Earth is fixed was done to determine IF there could be two active rotations. This model clearly shows there is one axis of rotation at the barycenter (external axis to the Moon) and that there is no second rotation on an internal axis of the Moon.
I am baffled that this realization isn’t obvious to everyone simply by nature of the matrix for performing a rotation and its obvious predictable impact on a point (B) when two rotations are active. Baffled!!
ftop_t, first of all, this thread has gotten too cumbersome so I suggest that we start a new thread. I have not yet your full and lengthy comment yet so may have more to say about it later.
Second, the argument was stated succinctly by one of your cohorts here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-573033
and from which I quote: “I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit).”
All I know is that the Earth-Moon system resides in a state of 1:1 spin-orbit resonance and as a result the Moon always shows approximately the same side to the Earth. That is the reality, full stop.
You non-spinners created this incongruous 0:1 spin-orbit unicorn Moon which does not rotate about its center of mass but yet always presents the same side to the Earth. If frame AX’Y’ is non-rotating it would present all sides to Earth as it orbits about fixed point O.
As an aside note that in my proof I made point B stationary in the rotating frame. However, the beauty of the proof is that I can also track a moving point in AX’Y’ such as for example a rover driving around and moving relative to point A.
@Tyson
First, I do want to express my appreciation for you providing mathematical rigor in your post…
You stated:
“frame AXY is rotating and therefore to an observer located at point A, point B is stationary, in this case.”
The “spinners” are claiming
Point B is rotating around Point A at the same rotational rate that the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating about Point O.
Their claim is that the current position of Point B (let’s say it is (17,2) which if A is at (15,0) will always be A(x+2,y+2) – up and to the right on your image during the entire rotation around O.
They believe that unless Point B rotates around Point A, it holds an absolute orientation up and to the right of Point A even while rotating around O.
Thus, magically, it B does not rotate around A, it changes its own orientation within frame AX’Y’ in a clockwise direction to match its perspective to the larger X/Y coordinate plane when A was at (15,0).
I can tell you understand the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating which causes the perspective from Point O.
As Bruce Willis would say, “Welcome to the party, pal”
@Tyson
Agree with you on the thread. I moved it once, and then @MikeR moved it back on to this one.
Meant to post this here…
@Tyson
Here is a model with two (2) axis of rotation you can specify:
Line 22 rotates about the origin (O in your diagram)
Line 30 rotates about the internal axis (A in your diagram)
If you can find a resonance value where Line 22 = Line 30 that would validate there are two (2) rotations (external and internal) in synchronous rotations.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj
The answer will devolve to the axis (Point A controlled by Line 30) is an implicit rotation (which means it does not exist and cannot be modeled) but we all agree it is there because the Earth and Moon are in synchronous orbit/axial rotation resonance.
“But the argument has been that: The moon is rotating on its axis (independent of observational location)”
That “independent of observational location” is the faulty argument from DREMT: “It has nothing to do with reference frames.”
ftop_t needs to properly & physically compensate his s to s’ when invoking an accelerated frame (s’) & ftop_t hasn’t done that thus arrives at a faulty model conclusion: “This model clearly shows there is one axis of rotation at the barycenter (external axis to the Moon) and that there is no second rotation on an internal axis of the Moon.” This faulty conclusion by ftop_t means there is no day/night cycle on Earth’s moon which is opposite to physical reality.
Tesla’s wheel assembly physics proved there are two rotations internal & external; ftop_t should follow Tesla’s physics closely to learn how to handle s’ properly & learn where ftop_t’s logic is physically faulty.
Ball4 still thinks the moon’s day/night cycle proves that it is rotating on its own axis!
He has never progressed even beyond that…
Sunny side up (or to the right)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eeylhdx6gx
ftop_t 12:42 PM,
To be clear, I am using two reference frames, one rotating (AX’Y’), and one fixed (OXY).
You say: “Point B is rotating around Point A at the same rotational rate that the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating about Point O.”
I say: Yes, as seen from OXY
You say: Point B (let’s say it is (17,2) which if A is at (15,0) will always be A(x+2,y+2) – up and to the right
I say: Point B holds a fixed position NE of A in frame AX’Y’ relative to an observer at A, but it has an absolute rotational motion about A in frame OXY as frame AX’Y’ orbits point O.
You say: magically, it B does not rotate around A, it changes its own orientation within frame AX’Y’ in a clockwise direction to match its perspective to the larger X/Y coordinate plane when A was at (15,0).
I say: As I explained above, B is stationary from the perspective of A, etc.
You say: I can tell you understand the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating which causes the perspective from Point O.
I say: Not clear what you mean here; frame AX’Y’ is rotating as it orbits around O, that’s what an observer standing at O sees.
You say: As Bruce Willis would say, “Welcome to the party, pal”
I say: WTF?
ftop_t 2:11 PM
I prefer Physics constrained simulations: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
@Tyson,
This is not what is being argued by the other side. This comment here and associated graphic will help you understand
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
Graphic
https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif
As you can see in example “C”
The “spinners” are claiming that in reference frame AX’Y’ if the moon was not rotating IN THAT FRAME it would point in a fixed position to some distant star through the entire orbit
@Tyson says:
“You say: magically, it B does not rotate around A, it changes its own orientation within frame AXY in a clockwise direction to match its perspective to the larger X/Y coordinate plane when A was at (15,0).
I say: As I explained above, B is stationary from the perspective of A, etc.
The spinners DO NOT BELIEVE B is stationary from the perspective of A. They believe if that were true, Example C would be the behavior.
I proved here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575869
That the only way to keep the redline pointing straight up is to have the object rotate opposite the orbit to maintain the relationship to a distant star.
Read comment #comment-566462 again to realize that there is a total lack of understanding about how the rotation of the entire AX’Y’ frame changes the view from O without the need to rotate B with respect to A WITHIN the AX’Y’ frame.
They are claiming that “Example B” includes 1 rotation inside of the AX’Y’ reference frame ALONG with a rotation of the entire AX’Y’ reference frame around “O”. In other words TWO ROTATIONS (one orbit around “O” and one axis rotation around “A”) to create the image in “Example B”
If “B” was not rotating WITHIN the AX’Y’ frame with respect to “A”, but only orbiting “O”; the claim is that behavior of “Example C” is what would happen.
We both agree that the reference frame is rotating and all parts within the reference frame are rotating from position O
ftop_t 3:11 PM
If you don’t agree that the Moon spins on its axis once for each orbit around Earth then you and I are not in agreement, and it seems to me that we are not.
The models in your linked comment,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
correctly show respectively, 2:1 spin-orbit in A, 1:1 in B and 0:1 in C.
We are not “claiming that “Example B” includes 1 rotation inside of the AX’Y’ reference frame,” but rather that frame AX’Y’ is fixed on the moon, attached to its center of mass at A, and is therefore rotating with it; that is why when observed from point A, point B always appears stationary. Frame AX’Y’ is fixed on the Moon and every crater, lava flow, boulder, etc, has the same coordinates relative to X’Y’ regardless of where the Moon is in its orbit around Earth. If a lunar rover happens to be circulating around on the Moon it will have changing coordinates inside AX’Y’, and of course also relative to O.
It’s good to finally have a substantive discussion with a non-spinner about the nuances of the models.
Regards.
From the OXY reference frame, the object is rotating about O, and not about its own center of mass.
The only way you can describe the object, from the OXY reference frame, as rotating on its own axis, is if you describe its motion as a translation of the center of mass of the object plus a rotation about that center of mass. However, ftop_t has already mentioned some of the reasons why that would be inappropriate.
Tyson 4:13pm, ftop_t does agree with you at least sometimes, shows an animation that is correct for the Earth/moon/sun wherein ftop_t shows the moon rotating once on its own axis per orbit of the center object with the same face pointing to the center object for the whole orbit and the lunar day/night cycle in place observed in the inertial frame.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ball4 turns up to troll everyone, as usual.
Ball4 5:10 PM
Yes, ftop_t does agree at times but his lack of understanding of the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames clouds his vision at other times. His animation correctly showing the Earth/moon/sun is a good starting point for him and may have set him on the right path to understanding.
Lol.
@Tyson
I shared with you this comment earlier
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584320
We both agree that there are two rotating frames of reference
1 at the origin (X,Y) or (0,0)
1 at the object (AX’Y’)
This GIF shared earlier represents three (3) scenarios for rotations in the frame of references
Graphic
https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif
In this graphic, the small window represents AX’Y’
The argument is that in this graphic:
Example A is
1 rotation about the origin
2 rotations about the AX’Y’ frame
(1:2) is used to signify the rotation ratio for each frame
Example B is
1 rotation about the origin
1 rotation about the AX’Y’ frame
(1:1) is used to signify the rotation ratio for each frame
Example C is
1 rotation about the origin
0 rotations about the AX’Y’ frame
(1:0) is used to signify the rotation ratio for each each frame
This is referenced here in your comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584239
In this DESMOS view, I have created dotted lines to represent the two orbiting frames, and I want to walk through Examples A, B & C with these frames available
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xxbjmtlbrh
A couple of house keeping notes
s = rotation from 0 to 360 around the origin
t = rotation from 0 to 360 within frame AX’Y’ as designated by the black dotted line
o = an offset so I can point the redline in the graphic above to match the starting points for Example A, B, C
I had to add this because Example C does hot start with the redline in the same place.
The red dot on the back of the rotating object is to show the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating
You can click on Line 2 to show the entire frame is rotating about the origin
Set Line 2 back to ZERO by moving the slider to 0
You can click on Line 5 to show the redline rotating within frame AX’Y’ (axial rotation)
Set Line 5 back to ZERO by moving the slider to 0
Example A
The claim is that this is two rotations in frame AX’Y’ and one about the origin (see small box in graphic)
(1:2)
Walk-through Example A
set 0 = to 3.15 so the redline points to the origin
The best way to demonstrate this is:
Go to Line 7
Change “t = r + o” to read: “t = 2s + o”
In other words, change the internal axis rotation to be 2x for every orbit
Click on Line 2 to start the rotation
Count the rotations of the redline and you will find it equals 3 and not 2.
Thus (1:3) if you hold the frame static like the GIF
Example B
The claim is that this is synchronous rotations; one (1) in frame AX’Y’ and one (1) about the origin (see small box in graphic)
(1:1)
Walkthrough Example B
Set Line 2 back to zero by moving the slider to zero
Change Line 7 from 2s to s
Click on Line 2 to start the rotation
What you will see is that all sides of the object point to the origin and the redline line passes through its same position after 180 degrees of rotation and again at 360 degrees of rotation
Thus (1:2) if you hold the frame static like the GIF
Example C
The claim is that this is a non rotating object in frame AX’Y’ and one (1) rotation about the origin (see small box in graphic)
(1:0)
Walkthrough Example C
Set Line 2 back to zero by moving the slider to zero
Change line 7 from 2s to zero (0) so it reads t = 0 + o
Line 8 – Move the offset to 1.6 so the redline points the same direction as Example C
Click on Line 2 to start the rotation
As expected, the object cannot be fixed in AX’Y’ (non-rotating) and have the redline always point up.
Go to Line 7 and change “t = 0 + o” to “t = -s + o”
what you will see is that the redline now points up throughout the rotation only because it is rotation internally in the opposite direction of the orbit
Thus (1:-1) keeps the redline pointing up
Feel free to play around with the model yourself, but the sum of rotational operations is clear.
Change Line 7 to t = r + o to set it back to the beginning or just reload the link
Which is why I made this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584247
Although there is only one rotation about an external axis and the moon is not rotating within its own frame AX’Y’; everyone will just pretend that the external rotation is an implicit rotation of the axis rather than accept reality.
Or, they will bring up “it doesn’t work for elliptic” which I proved wrong. Or, “it can’t explain libration” which I also proved wrong. The next argument will be “but, but, barycenter” which I have already modeled and proved wrong – but not posted.
BTW, your Univ. of Colorado link it GREAT!!
top_t 2:48 PM
your post tl:dr but since you put so much work into it I’ll give to one of my interns in see report back what he says.
Regarding the CU link, if you look at the Earth-Moon system and after letting it run for a couple of orbits, turn off gravity, you will see the Moon continuing to spin as it hurtles off into outer space. That is a demonstration of the conservation of angular momentum principle. It is not just a pretty simulation, it is also a teaching tool.
Regards.
p.s. I’ve posted this https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr at the bottom for your benefit. Your thoughts?
Sure, sure. One of your interns…
I note with much bemusement that Ftop’s argument via s =r ( or inertially referenced s ‘ =2r ) is essentially the same straw man argument of the highly eccentric Indian fellow on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/k1cziZt92BQ
This fellow, argued that the moon wasn’t rotating on its axis, by counter-example i.e. by attaching a rotating motor to a rotating platform and thereby proving 1 + 1 = 2.
MikeR makes a conscious decision not to understand.
Leader of the contrarian fruit cakes. While I admire your work over the years destroying the credibility of the climate change denial community, maybe it is time to think about retiring*.
You started the whole nonsense in a previous incarnation, and have been at it for over 3 years Unfortunately your new devotion to the false prophet has given you a new lease of life, but all you contribute is background noise (that results in incessant scrolling).
Best you hand over the reins to Ftop, as he is adept at geometry , new to the game and consequently possibly not as emotionally overcommited as you are. I am sure he can continue his quest to explain, via geometry only, how windmills work without the assistance of Pancho Sanza’s donkey.
* It was a good sign that 2021 started with your New Year’s resolution “Im not even going to mention it this month” but unfortunately your fruit cake colleague forked you over , and of course then you couldn’t resist. At least your resolution lasted 5 days.
More blah blah from MikeR to ignore.
Ok , please feel free to ignore as much as you like.
No one, God forbid , is stopping you.
OK, MikeR.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 5:31 PM
Don’t you employ interns for this type of “work?” Do you actually have this much free time and spend it on this blog?
That is, as one of my interns says, no bueno por nada.
OK, Tyson.
@Tyson
In response to your comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585020
It raises an interesting dilemma.
Instead of having the one object rotating, let’s make it a baton with a mirrored object on both sides.
Both objects have angular momentum
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uh5e50evti
By transitive property, if the model with one object circling the origin has two (2) axis of rotation, the baton has three (3) axis of rotation.
Non-spinners would say the baton has only one axis of rotation about the origin.
If you click on Line 35, non-spinners would say that now you have three (3) axis of rotation.
top_t 7:04 AM
All you’ve done in your new “simulation” is add a second rotating frame within the fixed frame.
The motion of a body has meaning only with respect to surrounding bodies; the moving frame’s rotation is observable from any location within the fixed frame; an observer positioned inside the rotating frame doesn’t know that his frame is rotating. That is the reason ancient astronomers once believed the Sun orbited the Earth.
Once more, the translating frame is also rotating within the fixed frame. The rotating frame is attached to the rigid body and any permanent feature within the rigid body is stationary relative to the rotating frame.
The determination of the number of axes of rotation is not affected by reference frames. You can say that from the "rotating reference frame" the object does not even appear to be moving, whilst the rest of the Universe appears to move around it. It is obvious that is not the reference frame we are using to determine the number of axes of rotation, otherwise we would be repeatedly referring to the object as not moving. It is moving. We can all see it moving around the origin. We are all judging the motion from the view of the screen we are presented with, which is, essentially, the XYO inertial reference frame.
The Spinners use reference frames as an easy out, as a way to obfuscate the issue. Any time you are caught out, and it is proven that there are only x axes of rotation, you just waffle something about reference frames. Then it’s, "oh, you just don’t understand reference frames".
From the "translating reference frame" which follows the object about as it orbits, whilst the frame itself remains oriented towards a distant fixed star, you can say that the object appears to be rotating on its own axis. This is the "illusion" Tesla referred to! And most of you still can’t see through it.
ftop_t 2:48 PM
Although there is only one rotation about an external axis and the moon is not rotating within its own frame AX’Y’; everyone will just pretend that the external rotation is an implicit rotation of the axis rather than accept reality.
It is too bad you went through all that work and still got it wrong. Although you are correct in saying that the moon is not rotating within its own frame AX’Y’. However, you are missing the part about frame AX’Y’ rotating as it orbit in OXY.
Do you believe that “A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation” regarding vector rB/A here https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr ? This is a quote from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584968 which by the transitive property is also attributed to you. Just curious if a seemingly analytical mind would conclude the same.
Description of linked image here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584954
"However, you are missing the part about frame AX’Y’ rotating as it orbit in OXY."
Frame AX’Y’ and contents are rotating about O! When will you learn to make the distinction between something rotating about its own axis, and something rotating about an external axis?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585540
https://youtu.be/GUvoVvXwoOQ?t=3172
D*R*E*M*T has been commenting since 2:32 AM, you’d think he could take a few minutes to watch a very instructive lecture such as https://youtu.be/GUvoVvXwoOQ?t=3172
But it might give hiM brain hurt!
“The Spinners use reference frames as an easy out, as a way to obfuscate the issue. Any time you are caught out, and it is proven that there are only x axes of rotation, you just waffle something about reference frames. Then it’s, "oh, you just don’t understand reference frames".”
Just taking a break from the fascination of watching live, what happens when the leader of a country is a deluded maniac.
Ftop’s delusions are such small beer in contrast. In fact whether the moon rotates on its axis is irrelevant to the climate change debate and a moon will do what a moon has to do i.e. All the moons along with all other celestial objects in the solar system and universe* possess axial rotation with respect to the external inertial environment (and accompanying angular momentum and rotational energy**)
*I know this is a huge claim but I am relying on someone to prove otherwise***. They have a lot of opportunities. Remember it has to be exactly zero plus or minus zero. Ftop’s zero rotation proof that a moon does not rotate with respect to itself is not to be included.
** these are foreign concepts to Ftop as physics is a world that has yet to be explored.
*** to whoever manages to do this task, the Nobel prize for Physics (Cosmology) will be forwarded along with all the shredded manuscripts concerning rotating disk accretion models for the formation of the solar system and stars etc..
See https://www.britannica.com/science/accretion-disk
MikeR…the only way you can say the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis from the inertial reference frame is if you describe the motion as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. You won’t understand, but I just thought I would point that out.
“Ftop’s zero rotation proof that a moon does not rotate with respect to itself is not to be included.”
What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.
…the only way you can say the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis from the inertial reference frame is if you describe the motion as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. DREMT won’t understand, but I just thought I would point that out.
What ftop_t has demonstrated with desmos inertial frame observation is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the orbiting body, then that body will show same side to the external axis, whilst it orbits with s=r=1.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
DREMT remains, & will always remain, confused about accelerated frames, not MikeR, SGW, Tyson or ftop_t.
Yes, Ball4, curvilinear translation. Well done. Unfortunately your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. You won’t understand why.
Thanks for verifying DREMT won’t understand, but I just thought I would point that out because the others will understand DREMT’s science deficiencies.
Thanks for confirming you didn’t understand why your second paragraph contradicted your first.
The others will understand there is no contradiction, but not unscientific DREMT.
Probably only ftop_t will see the contradiction.
Ftop on Jan 5 – “Or, they will bring up it doesnt work for elliptic which I proved wrong. Or, it cant explain libration which I also proved wrong.”
Ftop, the only problems with your elliptical orbit depictions are –
1. The earth is at the centre of the orbit and not at one of the focii .
2. The magnitude of the libration is way too small. For your depiction https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hohccm0s6t
the maximum libration is less than 10 degrees when it should be over 50 degrees, see
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
This is probably as a consequence of not having the earth in the wrong spot, but who knows what else is wrong.
Of course your moon is rotating on its axis with respect to the Cartesian axes. At least you got that right.
MikeR…ftop_t never agreed that it was rotating on its own axis.
Ftop,
With regard to your interesting dilemma,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585386
and https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uh5e50evti
Yes 3 axes at a minimum. Actually way more as every point in a rigid body* rotates around an axis with respect to a fixed external frame of reference
See
https://i.postimg.cc/Z57x0HVs/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/BsDYw40w/Pizza-Gate4.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/3NBjt1f4/Tesla3.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/tJN70C67/Moon-Earth.gif
The above may involve a level of abstraction that is well beyond the scope of Ftop’s concrete thinking, but you never know.
* Has to be rigid, for the pizza example the cheese should not be too runny, so please don’t leave it too long in the microwave.
Yes…you have to understand that MikeR believes every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis.
Yes, deputy assistant spokesman for Ftop.
It is a given that he believes the objects are not rotating on their axis, as he cannot understand why there are Cartesian axes on his desmos graphs.
Anyway I hope Ftop can fix up his libration desmos graphs.
Ftop’s fixed gaze and single mindedness, that would make him a great security consultant but not necessarily an expert on physics, should be useful in this situation.
No, I’m not making it up…he really does believe that.
“So, by definition, ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ should be described as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.”
Should be? According to who? Certainly not Newton, not physics, not aerospace engineering, and most importantly, not astronomy.
So just you, and a few other cranks.
Whadda you gonna do? Sue these organizations?
Ftop has abandoned the field, DREMT. He seemed unable to apply his external rotation Model to the Moon.
“This is one single motion.”
Yes, and as you have Already admitted, it can also be described as a combination of translation plus internal rotation.
And Astronomy has concluded that the latter is the ONLY description thst can be used for non circular orbits like the Moon’s, with tilted internal rotational axes.
Sorry, you gave your argument enough rope to hang itself. It is over.
“as the ‘eccentrics’ fly off on tangents at the mere mention of elliptical orbits.”
Ha!
MikeR’s on target..
Having addressed the mathematics of two axis of rotations, the argument has been made that the moon cannot be strictly rotating about an external axis because the orbit is elliptical.
That is clearly not true.
The following graphics solution demonstrates that the shape of the orbit has no bearing on the mathematical rules for rotation.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/czjaq0xgvg
An object orbiting elliptical around an external axis cannot also be rotating on its own axis and keep the same face of the object pointing toward the external center of rotation.
I will walk through the proof in the next post
Explanation/Walk-through of the proof
11
The above graphic represents a simple circle to demonstrate rotations. There are four points on the graph
(1,0) Red Dot (rotational point around the origin)
This point is on the unit circle defined on line 11
(11,0) Orange Dot (rotational point around the origin)
This point is the same as (1,0) only further from the origin
(10,0) Purple Dot (This is the internal center of axis)
(9,0) Green Dot (This will be the face of the object pointing to the origin. Note: this is originally offset by 180 degrees to represent the face pointing to the external center of rotation
It is best to think of all four of these dots as styrofoam balls stuck on a stick. They are have one rotation about the origin and like grooves on a record player, the distance they travel is based on their distance from the external rotational axis.
Each orbital path is shown with a dotted line
Click on 16 to start the rotation
Click on 18 to show an imaginary stick running through each ball
This is one (1) rotation about an external axis and each dot is rotating based on “s” which is the degree of rotation as defined in line 16
Go back to line 16 and set “d” to zero (0)
Click on 20 to create a circle for the moon
Click on 23 to start rotating the face of the moon
Note: this internal axis rotation (2nd rotation) is based on rotational value “t”
Now the face rotates on an internal axis and that face points in ALL directions during the rotation (on an internal axis)
Think of the green dot no longer connected to the stick, but rather connected to a wheel attached to an axis point of the purple dot. This is the internal axis of rotation
As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.
The only way to keep the face pointing in the same direction is to stop “t” the internal axis of rotation.
Note: you can click on line 23 at any time to stop the internal rotation and the green dot will stay in that orientation to the external (center origin) axis throughout the orbital motion.
Now, does elliptical orbits matter?
Nope!!
The orbits are defined in the folder “Orbital Paths”
The shape of the orbits can be modified by changing the values for “a” and “b”
Line 12 represents the large circular orbit (purple) where a = 10 and b =10
Go to line 26 and change “a” to (15)
We now have an elliptical orbit
The same principles hold true for elliptical orbits.
Thus, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on (orbiting) an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE ORBITAL PATH.
You can even click on the arrows in lines 26, 27 to create a constantly changing orbital path and the principle still holds true.
Elliptical shape is not an argument in support of the moon rotating on its internal axis.
Please use this link as the starting point for the walk-through above. For some reason it did not post properly
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1lmrqntlam
Also, I should have been explicit here:
Think of the green dot no longer connected to the stick, but rather connected to a wheel attached to an axis point of the purple dot. This is the internal axis of rotation
****Added****
You must click on line 16 again HERE to start the orbital motion
*************
As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.
*** REPOSTING THE WALKTHROUGH ***
To make it easier for some of the laggards, here is a consolidation of the changes on the post above
Explanation/Walk-through of the proof
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1lmrqntlam
The above graphic represents a simple circle to demonstrate rotations. There are four points on the graph
(1,0) Red Dot (rotational point around the origin)
This point is on the unit circle defined on line 11
(11,0) Orange Dot (rotational point around the origin)
This point is the same as (1,0) only further from the origin
(10,0) Purple Dot (This is the internal center of axis)
(9,0) Green Dot (This will be the face of the object pointing to the origin. Note: this is originally offset by 180 degrees to represent the face pointing to the external center of rotation
It is best to think of all four of these dots as styrofoam balls stuck on a stick. They are have one rotation about the origin and like grooves on a record player, the distance they travel is based on their distance from the external rotational axis.
Each orbital path is shown with a dotted line
Click on 16 to start the rotation
Click on 18 to show an imaginary stick running through each ball
This is one (1) rotation about an external axis and each dot is rotating based on s which is the degree of rotation as defined in line 16
Go back to line 16 and set d to zero (0)
You can just drag the slider to zero
Click on 20 to create a circle for the moon
Click on 23 to start rotating the face of the moon
Note: this internal axis rotation (2nd rotation) is based on rotational value t
Now the face rotates on an internal axis and that face points in ALL directions during the rotation (on an internal axis)
Think of the green dot no longer connected to the stick, but rather connected to a wheel attached to an axis point of the purple dot. This is the internal axis of rotation
In this view, the orbital motion has been stopped
Click on line 16 again to start the orbital motion
As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.
The only way to keep the face pointing in the same direction is to stop t the internal axis of rotation.
Note: you can click on line 23 at any time to stop the internal rotation and the green dot will stay in that orientation to the external (center origin) axis throughout the orbital motion.
Now, does elliptical orbits matter?
Nope!!
The orbits are defined in the folder Orbital Paths
The shape of the orbits can be modified by changing the values for a and b
Line 12 represents the large circular orbit (purple) where a = 10 and b =10
Go to line 26 and change a to (15)
We now have an elliptical orbit
The same principles hold true for elliptical orbits.
Thus, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on (orbiting) an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE ORBITAL PATH.
You can even click on the arrows in lines 26, 27 to create a constantly changing orbital path and the principle still holds true.
Elliptical shape is not an argument in support of the moon rotating on its internal axis.
Libration is also not a valid argument for the moon rotating.
While putting together this proof, I discovered that this model also eliminates libration as a valid argument for the moon rotating on its axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
“In lunar astronomy, libration is the wagging or wavering of the Moon perceived by Earth-bound observers and caused by changes in their perspective. It permits an observer to see slightly different hemispheres of the surface at different times.”
First, Libration is OBSERVATIONAL. It is a description of perception from earth and attributed to three features
1. Libration in longitude
2. Libration in latitude
3. Diurnal Libration
Of these, #2 & #3 are unrelated to any suggested axial rotation of the moon and can be discarded.
This leaves Libration of Longitude as a potential argument in support of the moon rotating on its axis.
When I created the “Imaginary Stick” and reshaped the orbit to be elliptical an interesting observation occurred. The green point (representing the moon’s face) kept moving back and forth across the orange “Imaginary Stick” WITHOUT any rotation about its axis (“t” stopped)
This is a great example:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ocyzh8hh91
The orange line is connected to a fixed point on the far side of the circle (moon).
I placed the green dot (internal facing point) slightly off center at 190 degrees to view the behavior
As the circle (moon) orbits on an elliptical path, there is a divergence between an elliptical rotation (orbit) and a circular object
The green dot moves back and forth past the Imaginary Stick based on the variance in the orbit. Further, the center of the object passes back and forth through the orange line.
Thus, when a circular object that is NOT rotating on its axis orbits an external point in an elliptical pattern, the orbital motion changes amplitude/distance; this “permits an observer to see slightly different hemispheres of the surface at different times.”
The very definition of Libration
Further demonstrating Libration, I found this view to be astounding
This is s model built off of the prior version above:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj
I added a triangle in the circle to better show orientation concerning the face of the moon.
What is incredible is the amount of the circle that moves inside of the green orbital path.
At (0,10) and (0,-10); the entire point of the triangle has moved inside the orbital path at (10,0).
Because of the circle traversing an elliptical orbit, significant portions of the “moon” come into view at the closest points to the center of orbit vs the farthest point
In this view,
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/sfkh448tn1
I changed the triangle to point along the orbital path and again, the orange line is parallel to the side of the triangle at (0,10)
At (-12.494,5.534) a major angle forms between the orange line and the side of the triangle. You can also see how far off the closest red dot (which is the basic rotation around the unit circle) the orange line has moved.
If you were standing at (-.8,.55) on the red dot for the unit circle you would be witnessing libation without any dependency on internal axial rotation
Ftop, I posted in reply to your above comment here-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582401
F_Troop does not understand inertial reference frames or physics. Typical of non-spinners.
Wrong.
My last comment was directed towards MikeR, by the way.
Ha ha ha…
You’ve hit a dead end. Its over my friend. Supporters are abandoning you.
If MikeR returns, I recommend commenting from here. The thread is getting long, too much scrolling up and down is a bit annoying, so let’s just continue here.
Good idea DREM,
My cat Schrodinger has found it increasingly difficult to follow the thread. Speaking of which, a remarkable thing just happened with my cat.
I left him in the same room as my computer in order to get a cup of tea. When I got back I found Schrodinger walking back and forth across the keyboard. What was truly remarkable he had coded up some software.
This is the output of the software.
https://i.postimg.cc/TYdMXXCX/Impossible-DREM.gif
I had to explain to poor Schrodinger that DREM and Ftop have both insisted what he had done was totally impossible. Consequently I was just going to get rid of his work but because he insisted, I decided to post it anyway.
Schrodinger is now back strolling across my keyboard and has now generated the following random garbage –
“Shall I compare thee to a summers day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May”.
I think I should stop him now as his pretensions may have got out of control.
Yes, MikeR, that is one single motion. The triangle is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is rotating about the external axis in the center of the screen. There is only one axis of rotation.
Understand?
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
“1) Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
2) Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
3) General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
There are only 3 types of motion the triangle could belong to. You want to classify it as type 3), a translation of the triangle’s center of mass in a circle plus a rotation of the triangle about the center of mass. However, that is for motion that does not fall into category 1) or 2). The motion of the triangle falls into category 2).
“3. Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class”
Yep. The Moon’s motion definitely falls into this class. Thank you.
Ur done. Go gome.
To those who apparently wish this discussion would come to an end, you can help that become a reality by explaining to MikeR why he is wrong about the triangle, and every single other example of pure rotation (category 2) that he has tried to pass off as a general plane motion (category 3). Once MikeR is prepared to accept he was wrong about every single gif he has ever created, and apologizes, we can move onto the other Spinners. Then, once everyone is up to speed (and only once everyone is up to speed) we can discuss which category orbital motion belongs in – or whether, as ClintR contends, it lies outside the frame of standard kinematic definitions altogether.
DREM,
MikeR tells me that you do not believe my work. I am deeply offended. He says you get so tormented by such depictions that you are threatening to do something drastic if I do not withdraw my work. You sound like a sore loser.
As I am so upset by your comment, while MikeR was asleep, I traversed the keyboard several times more and created this masterpiece. MikeR is even more impressed with this one.
https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif
It has two stages.
Stage 1 is a rotating line which Miker tells me represents the orbital motion of the centre of mass. It is like a triangle connected by a string.
At left is a triangle that is not translating but just rotating around an axis through the centre of mass of the triangle.
Stage 2 is where I drag the rotating triangle from the left using a subservient mouse and place it so that it connects to the rotating centre of mass and the two are connected and then move as one.
Subsequently I move the triangle to different locations to emphasise that all points on the string rotate on their respective axes.
DREM, you do have some support with your beliefs. My fellow cat Kepler , who is intellectually challenged due to an accident at birth, loves to chase lasers around in circles*.
He is convinced that he is not rotating on his axis as he pursues the laser, and is unconvinced by my explanation. He plans to chase the laser until he catches it and shreds it into little pieces.
I have suggested to MikeR that he renames Kepler to DREM to recognise your incredible persistence in following an impossible dream.
* He can even run in ellipses if required.
What do you not understand about what I linked to, MikeR?
The triangle is a case of motion belonging to category number 2), as your new gif shows even more clearly than it was already. It is rotating about an external axis in the center of the screen, and not rotating about its own center of mass. Do you even understand the concept of rotation about a fixed axis?
DREM,
I am afraid you are going to have to convince my cat. He thinks you are the dumbest thing on two legs, if you cannot understand that two separate rotational motions were used to create his wonderful depiction.
Even Kepler, the retarded one is convinced now but he still admires you for persistent refusal to face facts. However he has given up on chasing the laser. He knows when to give up.
Read the link, MikeR. The only way the motion in your gif can be comprised of two movements is if you describe it as a category 3), a general plane motion. That is a translation (not a rotation) of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about the center of mass.
But, you only describe a motion as category 3) if it does not fall into category 1) or 2). The motion of the triangle, the ball on a string, the wooden horse, the chalk circle, etc etc, all fall into category 2). They are rotating about a fixed axis. The axis is outside of the object in each case. It is one single movement. No rotation about the center of mass of the object itself.
The object is rotating about the external axis, such that all its particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
DREM , my cat is fed up with you just repeating the same assertion over and over. He has read your link thoroughly. He thinks it is wonderfully comprehensive.
He particularly thinks you should carefully re-read Section 5.1.2., which you quote without understanding.
“General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation”.
Accordingly Schrodinger is very well aware that a rotation can be done
(a) in one plane motion, as in a rotating disk or alternatively
(b) the two can be reduced to translation (of any type including rotation, or orbiting about an external axis) of the centre of mass plus rotation around the centre of mass.
Contrary to DREM’s belief stated above, these two alternatives are not mutually exclusive i.e. the existence of (a) does not rule out (b).
To continue in this long winded fashion and in the vain attempt to get DREM to think, the usefulness of concept of centre of mass is predicated on
1. Being the position point for balancing and
2. its use to decompose motion as above. For further clear explanation regarding this latter use see –
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/567956/rigid-body-motion-decomposition
Finally, Schrodinger is extremely unforging at the moment and just thinks your refusal to accept that a single rotation can also be done in two independent motions (which is appropriate to an untethered object such as the Moon) is extremely silly . He thinks the only reason for your recalcitrance belongs more in the province of psychology , than in physics.
On than note. He is offering counselling services to Kepler due to the traumatic realisation that his ambition to catch the laser is futile. He is quite happy to include you in the session and his rates are quite reasonable.
p.s. DREM, if you insist on continuing the farce, rather than just continually restating your position about a single rotation (which is agreed by all) , maybe explain what exactly is wrong about the equivalent two motions shown in Schrodinger’s depiction and why they are not equivalent to the single rotation.
Yes, MikeR, you can waffle on forever. By the way, did you notice that ftop_t is back?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571504
MikeR, the motion of the triangle, chalk circle, ball on a string, wooden horse, olive on a pizza etc etc falls under category 2. It is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. I’m sorry that you cannot accept that, or apparently not even understand it. If you choose to incorrectly label it as a category 3, general plane motion, then understand that this involves a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. In other words, you still have only one axis of rotation.
“(b) the two can be reduced to translation (of any type including rotation, or orbiting about an external axis) of the centre of mass plus rotation around the centre of mass.”
So now you are arguing that rotation is a type of translation!? Anything to avoid accepting you are wrong, I suppose.
“Accordingly Schrodinger is very well aware that a rotation can be done
(a) in one plane motion, as in a rotating disk”
Yes, and the axis of rotation need not go through the body. So, do you at least acknowledge that the motion of the triangle, chalk circle, ball on a string, wooden horse etc, can be described as one single motion about an external axis? Because there are many on your own side of the argument who do at least understand and accept this.
P.S:
“.,,rather than just continually restating your position about a single rotation (which is agreed by all)”
It’s not agreed by all, MikeR. It’s apparently not really agreed by you. Because you have never once acknowledged that the chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string, triangle, or olive on the pizza etc etc can be considered to be a single rotation about an external axis. If you really understood that, you would understand the fact that it is not rotating on its own axis, from any frame of reference.
“Then, once everyone is up to speed ….we can discuss which category orbital motion belongs”
It is in category 3 for the Moon and all non-circular orbits. Just a fact, like 11 > 9.
Though you seem think ‘discussion’ can help you change such facts. It generally doesnt, and I think we’ve see that movie 57 times anyway.
Just GO AWAY.
P.P.S: Don’t forget to respond to ftop_t.
Tesla has the ball on string motion etc. proven correctly, ftop_t is proven wrong by Tesla paper which anyone can find with google:
“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/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571256
FTOP
“In regards to tilted axis, from my perspective, this point is moot.”
SO you are choosing to ignore this contradictory fact, that the Moon has an axis that is tilted @ 6.7 degrees from a Normal to its orbital plane? I thought being mathematically rigorous was important to you. I guess not.
“In regards to Elliptic vs. circular orbits. All circles are ellipses, as a circle is just an ellipse where both foci are at the center and can be algebraically reduced to x(2) + y(2) = 1”
Yes, but MORE IMPORTANTLY not all ellipses are circles.
“The fact that the moon stays oriented along its orbital path with the same side facing the direction of its orbit is consistent with a rotation around a center and not a rotation about its axis.”
No. This is completely wrong FTOP. The Moon does not stay oriented like that. How can it? It has significant Libration.
Here is a video of the Moon’s orientation to the Earth during its orbit.
https://youtu.be/3f_21N3wcX8
Again, where is your mathematical rigor here?
“Is it your contention that the rotation of the moon changes speeds? Do you think it is possible for a rotating object to slow down and then speed up consistently at just the right time? Is it coincidence?”
No, on the contrary. The Moon’s rate of rotation about its internal axis is fixed. And this axis is not normal to its orbital plane. Its orbital angular velocity is not fixed. These are two INDEPENDENT motions.
TO summarize, a ‘pure rotation’ model fails badly for the Moon.
DREM,
I have taken care of Ftop with my recent post above, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-572147 .
With regards to the term translation, which seems to have excited you, there seems to be some semantic confusion.
The term “translation” refers to the motion by which a body shifts from one point in space to another. However often the terms ” translation” and “rotation” are used to differentiate types of motion which can be confusing when the term “linear translation” would be a much clearer differentiator.
In the context of our discussion, I think it might be preferable to refer to use the general term “curvilinear translation”.
The “curvi” part refers to curved motion which would incude parabolic, circular and elliptical motion while the “linear” refers to linear translation. For further explanation see –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_motion
Finally I have to confirm that yes 100% definitely ” the chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string, triangle, or olive on the pizza etc etc can be considered to be a single rotation about an external axis”.
Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this.
However these motions can and/or be described in terms of 1.rotation of a point (such as the centre of mass) about an external axis and 2. rotation about an axis passing through this point.
For this latter point, is where you have to prove the other rotators and myself wrong.
Why not try this for a change?
“Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this.”
Lol. Well, this is news to me. So, then you understand why the ball on a string etc is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame? You have known all along, but have just chosen to act confused every time I tried to explain it to you? I think you are full of shit.
“However these motions can and/or be described in terms of 1.rotation of a point (such as the centre of mass) about an external axis and 2. rotation about an axis passing through this point.”
No, they can’t, MikeR. It is 1. translation of the center of mass and 2. rotation about an axis passing through this point if you go for category 3), general plane motion…which you should not, if it falls into category 1) or 2), which it does.
There are not two axes of rotation, MikeR. Either way. If an object were rotating about two axes of rotation, an external axis plus an internal axis, you would see all sides of the object from the external axis.
You cannot have a rotation of a point, because it is a point. There is nothing about it which can change its orientation. It possesses no quality of pointing in a particular direction, since it is a point. It can only translate, move from one point in space to another.
DREM,
You are really outdoing yourself. What the fook are you talking about?
DREM “Lol. Well, this is news to me. So, then you understand why the ball on a string etc is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame? You have known all along, but have just chosen to act confused every time I tried to explain it to you? I think you are full of shit.”
What part of my previous statement “Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this”, do you not understand?
I have made it abundantly clear that yes , a simple rotation can be used to describe the motion, but also the same motion can be described by two appropriate rotations. These alternatives descriptions are NOT mutually exclusive!
A simple analogy to your claim , which is even more stupid than your favourite false analogy*, would be that a single rotation through 10 degrees cannot , under any circumstances , be decomposed into two rotations each through 5 degrees.
Likewise a single rotation of an object about an external axis can be decomposed into 1. a rotation of the point at the centre of mass of the object around the same external axis and 2. A second rotation of the object around the centre of mass. They are equivalent, see –
https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif
I also have had a good laugh about your comment “You cannot have a rotation of a point, because it is a point. There is nothing about it which can change its orientation” .
Do you write your own material?This is such a classic!
Of course a point has no orientation, but the position vector joining the point to the centre of rotation most definitely does!!! See the red line in the above linked depiction.
Anyway DREM, please continue with your convincing attempt to appear to be a total moron. Don’t let my comments discourage you as , once more, I have to chuckle at the damage done to the denial community by you and your colleagues wonderful contributions. Bravo! More please!
* the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, is also capable of generating it’s fair share of amusement. On that note, DREM, are there any developments on formulating how your rotating rigid body concept copes with elliptical orbits?
Any sign of progress, no matter how insignificant, would be greatly appreciated by all. 😂
Google “can a point mass rotate?”
First result: “Rotation does not apply to a point mass since we cannot ascribe to it orientation in space (Section 5). During the pure rotation of a rigid body its separate particles describe circular motions with the same angular velocity about the same axis.”
Besides which, as you keep ignoring, general plane motion specifically dictates a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. You keep talking about the two options not being mutually exclusive…I am not saying that they are exclusive, MikeR. You can describe the motion of a pure rotation as two separate motions if you wish. You can describe it as a bunch of balloons if you wish. However, the correct kinematic description for the ball on a string etc is as one single motion, category 2). You can, incorrectly, break it down into two motions, but then it is a translation plus a rotation. You still only have one axis of rotation.
If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
P.S:
“What part of my previous statement “Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this”, do you not understand?”
That it doesn’t bear any resemblance to the history of the discussion we have had on this subject, MikeR. That’s what I don’t understand. You have never before acknowledged that the motion of the ball on a string etc can be described as a single motion about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. You have in fact fought me every step of the way in trying to describe it that way. Now you expect me to accept that you have “never disagreed”? What were all the disagreements over then, MikeR!?
So you want to just come along and act like you knew it all along, with no apology, no acceptance that you were wrong before, and just expect me never to refer to it again!? You are hilarious!
M “Of course a point has no orientation, but the position vector joining the point to the centre of rotation most definitely does!!! See the red line in the above linked depiction.”
A perfectly logical, clear argument that any educated person can understand.
But DREMT cant deal..he has to Google search for a response.
Hilarious.
I have senior moments, where I forget where I put my phone or keys.
But after all this time discussing rotation, it seems DREMT is having a senior week. Forgeting what rotation even means..
Astonishing.
Or, just an attempt to distract from his overall loss of the Moon spin argument.
P.P.S:
"Of course a point has no orientation, but the position vector joining the point to the centre of rotation most definitely does!!! See the red line in the above linked depiction."
Just in case this wasn’t clear…you say, "joining the point to the center of rotation"…there is no "center of rotation" because there is no rotation of the center of mass about an external axis. It is a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass, in general plane motion. Which you should not even be using, anyway, because the motion belongs in category 2) in any case.
A translation is not a rotation, and it involves no axis of rotation.
DREMT now seems to believe that a point mass in a circular orbit is NOT a rotation around the orbit center. But this contradicts all his previous descriptions of orbiting being a rotation.
Weird.
I will just repeat this comment from earlier:
Going back to what we were discussing previously, I hope people can see the sleight of hand that is going on, regarding the ball on a string. This is what they do:
1) In general plane motion, you decompose a motion into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about that center of mass.
2) So for the ball on a string, they argue the center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the ball is then rotating about that center of mass.
3) Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis at the center of revolution (this is wrong).
4) Hey presto! Suddenly the ball on a string has two axes of rotation!
No. A translation is a translation. It involves no axis of rotation. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, even if you do look at it as a general plane motion.
However, a ball on a string is more simply and accurately described as a case of pure rotation of the entire ball about an axis in the center of revolution, with no rotation about the balls own center of mass. One single motion.
Either way, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. If it had two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
Ha!
“Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis”
Not us claiming it, just standard dictionaries…and earlier DREMTs!
But you often differ with them!
DREM,
Maybe you should comb through our correspondence over several years and find where I have said explicitly that none of the motions for a rigid plate can be accounted for by a single rotation. If I did, I was either wrong* , taken out of context or just simply misunderstood**.
DREM If you cannot find an explicit case then we can just assume your claim is just more rhetorical b.s..
Returning to the ball on a string , you are correct in one aspect with your statement, ” …a ball on a string is more simply and accurately described as a case of pure rotation of the entire ball..” .
The “simply” is definitely correct. The ” accurately described ” is debatable. Again, it is akin to saying with respect to the equations 5 + 5 = 10 and 8 +2 = 10 , the simpler right hand side is a more accurate description, than the left hand side of these equations, despite them being equivalent . The complexity of left hand side demonstrates that there are more than one way to obtain the same simple result.
Do I need to spell out the correspondence between this example and our single, dual rotation debate in either the rigid body or lunar motion examples? I sincerely hope not, but I know what I am dealing with.
DREMT -“No. A translation is a translation. It involves no axis of rotation. ”
Translation in its generic sense*** describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel . Particularly note the use of the word “parallel” which does not mean straight parallel lines. A body in circular motion ( subset of curvilinear motion for the case where the radius of curvature is constant) travels so that the opposite sides**** of the body to the centre of rotation travel in parallel concentric circles.
Therefore DREM, your assertion that translation involves no axis of rotation is just an assertion, that is true except when it is wrong.
.
.
.
* happy to plead guilty in this case. It takes emotional maturity to admit your mistake and move on. Some people are not suitably equipped and just double down and repeat themselves . Not mentioning names.
** there has been a lot of semantic confusion about terms like “translation”, ” linear translation”, “rectilinear translation”, “curvilinear motion” , “rotation,” revolution” etc.. as these are often employed in different ways in different contexts in physics, astronomy and engineering.
*** Confusingly the term “translation” is commonly used in a different context to specifically describe linear translation. A Google search will find both, hence the confusion.
**** Opposite here means the following. For a moon shaped object , the near and far points, with respect to the centre of revolution of the moon will always, by definition, be concentric, see option 2, below. The path traced out by the points fixed to the surface will trace out more complex parallel epicycloidal shapes , when the rotation speed does not match the orbital speed, option 1 see below.
https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/Jh8X4w53/Circular-Orbits-Option2.gif
MikeR…my gosh, you can waffle on.
Let me break it down for you:
1) The movement of the ball on a string is either:
a) A general plane motion – a translation plus a rotation. Two motions, only one of which is a rotation.
b) A pure rotation, one single motion.
2) a is only applicable if b does not apply, but b does apply (all according to Brown notes).
3) Either way, a or b, there is only one axis of rotation, because there is only one rotation.
4) If there were two axes of rotation (one external to the ball, one internal) you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution.
DREM,
You are wonderful at recycling. How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions? Despite your protestations I think we all understand where you are coming from. It’s not rocket science. In fact it’s not science* at all.
DREM, you are really starting to get boring. Rather than rehashing the same old, how about some new material or just respond to the questions that arise from your comments such as –
1. DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.
2. Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?
3. Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?
4. DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?
5. Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?
6. DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?
7. DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?
8. DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?
9. Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists
10. DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?
11. As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?
12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?
Anyway are we getting to get another repetition or a genuine response to these questions? So many questions for DREM and from past experience, I expect very few answers . Maybe he will prove me wrong. Hope springs eternal.
* Apologies to any psychologists reading this.
** For 3D – Google “Euler Angles” for information about the decomposition of 3D rotations.
Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.
“How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?”
They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.
“1. DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.”
Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.
“2. Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?”
Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation.
“3. Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?”
As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept – that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.
“4. DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?”
I don’t. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Kepler’s laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.
“5. Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?”
I don’t. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.
“6. DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?”
I don’t. Go look it up.
“7. DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?”
I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.
“8. DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?”
They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon.
“9. Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists”
Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis.
“10. DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?”
I do not think they are stupid.
“11. As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?”
I don’t.
“12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?”
Yes.
I think that is everything…
I am very pleased that I have managed to get a more detailed response from DREM and not another cut and paste repetition.
Here is DREM in action.
“Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.
How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?
They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.”
DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.
My questions are not in series, but in parallel and are all related to your belief that the only valid way to describe the motion of the Moon is via an axial non rotating Moon. I do however note some shape shifting going on with your answer to 7. We are making some progress.
Now with regard to your answers.
1. DREM, why do you think the term translation does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.
DREM – “Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.”
My Response – Another assertion from DREM.
Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.
2. Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?
DREM – “Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into atranslationplus a rotation. Still onlyoneaxis of rotation.”
My Response – This is the trickiest to explain because of the wording in the Brown notes which could lead to confusion for some.
However It is clear that rotational motion can be consideredas 1. simply alone or alternatively as 2. a general plane motion where motion can be decomposed.
The first is a subset of the second. They are not discrete non overlapping sets ( I can do a Venn diagram if you like).
Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.
3. Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?
DREM – “As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the objects center of mass.”
My Response – yes you have explained the single purpose of your analogy many times .
There are three types of analogies, useful, useless and totally useless.
Useless analogies are the domain of “argument by false analogy” where one common characteristic is used to imply that there is more general commonality than actually exists, i.e. my dog has a nose, I have a nose, I am therefore a dog.
The totally useless analogy is where there are no common characteristics. For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.
4. DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?
DREM – “I dont. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Keplers laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.”
My Response – yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?
God only knows as he is only one who may have access to whatever is going on in DREM’s mind.
5. Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?
DREM -” I dont. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.”
My Response – Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.
6. DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?
DREM – “I dont. Go look it up”.
My Response – Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration ( I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.
7. DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moons axial rotation?
DREM – ” I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.”
My Response – yes there is some validity in the 0:1 mode using a non-inertial reference frame but unfortunately it’s not that useful with regard to understanding energetics and angular momentum.
That is why the (1:1) mode, using an inertial reference frame, is preferred by astronomers and physicists.
You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.
8. DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moons axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?
DREM – “They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon”.
My Response – Professional astronomers who devote years and resources to these measurements are mistaken. You propose a very interesting hypothesis.
However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.
9. Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moons rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists
DREM – “Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis”.
My Response – They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.
10. DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?
DREM – “I do not think they are stupid.”
My Response – Good,are they just deluded?
11. As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?
DREM – “I dont.”
My Response – I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.
12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term delusions of grandeur?
DREM – “Yes.”
My Response – DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?
DREM – I think that is everything
I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like. I know you are a glutton for punishment.
In the interests of clarity, a minor formatting revision to the Q and A session with DREM.
I am very pleased that I have managed to get a more detailed response from him and not another cut and paste repetition.
Here is DREM in action.
“Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.
“How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?”
They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.”
DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.
My questions are not in series, but in parallel and are all related to your belief that the only valid way to describe the motion of the Moon is via an axial non rotating Moon. I do however note some shape shifting going on with your answer to 7. We are making some progress.
Now with regard to your answers.
“ 1 . DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.”
DREM – “Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.”
My Response – Another repetitive assertion from DREM.
Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.
“ 2 . Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?”
DREM – “Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation.”
My Response – This is the trickiest to explain because of the wording in the Brown notes which could lead to confusion for some.
However It is clear that rotational motion can be considered as 1. simply alone or alternatively as 2. a general plane motion where motion can be decomposed.
The first is a subset of the second. They are not discrete non overlapping sets ( I can do a Venn diagram if you like).
Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.
“ 3 . Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?”
DREM – “As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept – that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.”
My Response – yes, you have explained the single purpose of your analogy many times .
There are three types of analogies, useful, useless and totally useless.
Useless analogies are the domain of “argument by false analogy” where one common characteristic is used to imply that there is more general commonality than actually exists, i.e. my dog has a nose, I have a nose, I am therefore a dog.
The totally useless analogy is where there are no common characteristics. For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.
“ 4 . DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?”
DREM – “I don’t. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Kepler’s laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.”
My Response – yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?
God only knows as he is only one who may have access to whatever is going on in DREM’s mind.
“ 5 . Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?”
DREM -” I don’t. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.”
My Response – Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.
“ 6 . DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?”
DREM – “I don’t. Go look it up”.
My Response – Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration ( I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.
“ 7 . DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?”
DREM – ” I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.”
My Response – yes there is some validity in the 0:1 mode using a non-inertial reference frame but unfortunately it’s not that useful with regard to understanding energetics and angular momentum.
That is why the (1:1) mode, using an inertial reference frame, is preferred by astronomers and physicists.
You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.
““ 8 . DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?”
DREM – “They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon”.
My Response – Professional astronomers who devote years and resources to these measurements are mistaken. You propose a very interesting hypothesis.
However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.
“ 9 . Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists”
DREM – “Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis”.
My Response – They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.
“ 10 . DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?”
DREM – “I do not think they are stupid.”
My Response – Good, are they just deluded?
“ 11 . As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?”
DREM – “I don’t.”
My Response – I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.
“ 12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?”
DREM – “Yes.”
My Response – DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?
DREM – I think that is everything…
I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like.
DREM, I know you are such a glutton for punishment. I am always willing to indulge his passions.
“DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.”
You were attempting to change the subject, yes. They were a list of questions that were vaguely related…but you were attempting to shift focus, as you were in a tight spot.
1. “Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.”
I am not buying what you are selling, MikeR. Translation and rotation are two completely different types of motion, according to everything I have ever read on the topic.
2. “Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.”
As I said, the ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation. If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of the orbit.
3. “For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.
But you now acknowledge that an object moving like a ball on a string can be classified as a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. So you must finally understand a part of the Non-Spinner position, which many of your fellow Spinners still dispute, even now. The analogies have helped you make progress!
4. “yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?”
It is obviously not a useless analogy, at all. See previous response.
5. “Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.”
No. Can’t be bothered.
6. “Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration (I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.”
I don’t evade anything, MikeR. I have spent the last few months continuously answering your questions, and playing your stupid games. I get bored. Libration takes time to explain. I have already explained it so many times.
7. “You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.”
The moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame…and you should now be able to see why. You now acknowledge that an object moving like the ball on a string can be classified as a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. That of course remains true, regardless of appearances from a specific reference frame. So…now you know.
8. “However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.”
I thought you Spinners argued that the rate of change in orientation was fairly steady, whilst the orbital speed was what varied…
9. “They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.”
See previous response.
10. “Good,are they just deluded?”
They’re just wrong.
11. “I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.”
No, I think you are mistaken. But, like a lot of your questions, you have already asked me before. Weird that you would keep asking me the same questions over and over. Unless it was just a Gish gallop exercise, of course.
12 . “DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?”
No.
“I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like. I know you are a glutton for punishment.”
I will not be answering any more of your questions. You now owe me twelve answers to any questions of my choosing, to be asked at any time of my choosing.
Interesting how WordPress can mangle symbols! Particularly as in my WordPress blog it doesn’t!
see https://mikerdotblog.wordpress.com/comment-page-1/#comment-8
Hopefully between the two versions above and this link, my Q and A session makes sense.
Otherwise back to the drawing boards.
I am not going to comment much about DREM’s latest contribution as much of it is just diced and sliced regurgitation of his boringly stale signature dish.
Here are some comments regarding his other ridiculous contributions.
I am not buying what you are selling, MikeR. Translation and rotation are two completely different types of motion, according to everything I have ever read on the topic.
It is clear you actually haven’t read the Brown article which you first linked to! All that is required to do is for you to read (and understand) the first 4 lines of Part 5.1.2. . To make it easy for you here is the link again.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
don’t evade anything, MikeR. I have spent the last few months continuously answering your questions, and playing your stupid games. I get bored. Libration takes time to explain. I have already explained it so many times.
Ok if it exists, just cut and paste it. You have shown , in th past, great aptitude in using Ctrl C and Ctrl V , so it should not take you more than a minute or two.
What are you ashamed of? Once you have done this I promise I will not pester you.
I thought you Spinners argued that the rate of change in orientation was fairly steady, whilst the orbital speed was what varied…
No, the rate of rotation of the Moon on its axis has been gradually slowing as the separation between the Earth and Moon increases. These very slow changes are referred to as secular variations. Here is an article where they are actually measuring the slowing down of the rotation rate of the Moon. Note the current measured rate is nowhere near zero.
see – https://tinyurl.com/ydz3anky
You now owe me twelve answers to any questions of my choosing, to be asked at any time of my choosing.
DREM , please go for it. However I am impatient but I am more than happy to answer more than twelve questions.
It might indicate that you may have thought of something new to say and that would be simply amazing!
Does anyone Know what is going on with the butchering of text by WordPress?
I think I might have to resort to using Notepad and then checking for weird ASCII or Unicode characters with a hex editor, before posting.
Attempt 2 (hopefully without crud).
I am not going to comment much about DREM’s latest contribution as much of it is just diced and sliced regurgitation of his boringly stale signature dish.
Here are some of my comments regarding his other ridiculous contributions.
I am not buying what you are selling, MikeR. Translation and rotation are two completely different types of motion, according to everything I have ever read on the topic.
It is clear you actually have read the Brown article which you first linked to. All that is required to do is for you to read (and understand) the first 4 lines of 5.1.2. . To make it easy for you here is the link again.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
” I don’t evade anything, MikeR. I have spent the last few months continuously answering your questions, and playing your stupid games. I get bored. Libration takes time to explain. I have already explained it so many times.”
Ok, DREM if it exists just cut and paste your explanation. You have shown , in the past, great aptitude in using Ctrl C and Ctrl V , so it should not take you more than a minute or two of your valuable time.
What are you ashamed of? Once you have done this I promise I will not pester you about this again.
“I thought you Spinners argued that the rate of change in orientation was fairly steady, whilst the orbital speed was what varied”
No, the rate of rotation of the Moon on its axis has been gradually slowing as the separation between the earth and moon increases. These very slow changes are referred to as secular variations. Here is an article where they are actually measuring the slowing down of the rotation rate of the Moon. Note the rotational speed is definitely not zero
see – https://tinyurl.com/ydz3anky
“You now owe me twelve answers to any questions of my choosing, to be asked at any time of my choosing.”
DREM , please go for it. However I am impatient but I am more than happy to answer more than 12 questions. It might indicate that you may have thought of something new and that would be simply amazing!
“I am not going to comment much about DREM’s latest contribution as much of it is just diced and sliced regurgitation of his boringly stale signature dish.”
In other words, most of it he has no rebuttal for.
“It is clear you actually haven’t read the Brown article which you first linked to! All that is required to do is for you to read (and understand) the first 4 lines of Part 5.1.2. . To make it easy for you here is the link again.”
Yes, read and understood. Translation and rotation are two separate types of motion.
“Ok if it exists, just cut and paste it. You have shown , in th past, great aptitude in using Ctrl C and Ctrl V , so it should not take you more than a minute or two.”
No thanks.
“What are you ashamed of?”
Nothing. I also have nothing to prove to you. I also don’t believe you if you are trying to say you haven’t read a discussion on libration yet.
“Once you have done this I promise I will not pester you.”
Of course you will. That is all you ever do.
“Note the current measured rate is nowhere near zero.”
Because they mistake a change in orientation for axial rotation.
“It might indicate that you may have thought of something new to say and that would be simply amazing!”
What would be amazing is if you listened to and learned from the things I have already said, instead of asking me questions you already know the answers to, in order to shift the focus from yourself.
DREM,
You clearly are incapable of reading the text you linked to and you are also totally incapable of locating , if it indeed exists, your explanation for how libration works for a non rotating Moon. Accordingly I think it is time to move on.
Returning to theme of delusions of grandeur , particularly of the narcissistic variety. I was wondering if you could identify the arrogant wanker who when, referring to the scientists who have been been diligently measuring and analysing rotational data from the Moon for 50 years.
Yes, they too cannot correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation. Its a common problem.
The same arsehat proclaimed the following.
Its just a simple, fundamental concept. You either get it or you dont. I was unfortunate enough to understand it from the get go.
and again lamenting his fate as an unrecognised genius.
just something you either get, or you dont. I cant help it that I understood it immediately. I almost wish I hadnt.
This was obviously someone other than DREM , as he now denies he has a particular unique insight that has eluded scientists such as Newton and the entire astronomical community.
Maybe DREM has some knowledge regarding the pompous prick who made these comments?
MikeR gets frustrated, and starts lashing out like a child.
Hmm DREM, it sounds like I struck a nerve. So the pompous prick was you all along.
Thanks for coming out.
More juvenile nonsense.
Now that we have identified the culprit via a sensitive raw nerve, maybe DREM would like to exhibit some humility and express some regret* for the disparaging nature of his comments about scientists who devote their careers to studying the Moon.
It might soothe DREM’s nerves and be first step on the long arduous road to restore some credibility. You have to start somewhere.
* just a statement of regret. A full apology to the scientists is, I suspect, not necessary as I am sure they are not that worried about comments from some scientifically illiterate random on this web site. NASA scientists in particular have had to deal with loonies for years. Moon landing hoaxers, flat Earthers etc… , just other nutcase to add the collection.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
All’s well that ends well.
DREM surrender document has been submitted via PST*.
As Nate said when starting this sub thread
Ha ha ha
Youve hit a dead end. Its over my friend. Supporters* are abandoning you.
* no need to keep resubmitting. We have got the message.
** what’s happened to Ftop? I submitted my work for his assignment 4 or 5 days ago and he has now gone missing. I hope he is ok. Maybe he is busy learning how to code?
I expect ftop_t has realized that there is no point talking to you, since you can not be reasoned with. And no, me asking you to stop trolling is not surrendering. You really are trolling, and I genuinely would like you to stop. MikeR, please stop trolling.
Well DREM, what a sad state of affairs.
Lately we have had wide ranging discussions about, amongst other things,
1. the shortcomings of your theory vis a vis the elliptical orbit of the Moon, in particular your mysteriously missing explanation for libration and,
2. the fact that rotation of the moon on its axis has been precisely measured by astronomers for many years and
3. your pretentious disparagement of these scientists who work in a field where you have absolutely no qualifications.
It seems for some unfathomable reason ( I can hazard a guess) thatvyou have decided that you want to terminate these discussions, and your mechanism is via your usual pathetic taunt of a PST.
Terminating the discussions is your right, as no one is forcing you to comment here, but where I come from , this is tantamount to deserting the scene of battle or waving the white flag of surrender.
Accordingly , rather than PST , you should change your surrender motif to PSTMWTF ( Please Stop Tormenting Me With the Facts).
Another reason ftop_t might not be responding, is that you have since conceded that the movement of the ball on a string, etc, can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s own center of mass. In which case, you have finally acknowledged the point he was trying to make all along, and basically you concede the entire debate.
That’s probably all he was waiting to see. As the debate is now over, I guess you will be wanting to shoot off, MikeR. However you want to flee the scene, with your tail between your legs, is up to you. I’m happy with the win. You can scroll down-thread, and re-read the comments about libration between Tim Folkerts, ClintR and myself if that helps improve you further.
As for the scientists who are measuring the rate at which the moon changes its orientation whilst it orbits, they are doing a grand job. Their only error is in mistaking a change of orientation for axial rotation. Oh well.
There’s just one more thing: MikeR, please stop trolling.
“I expect ftop_t has realized that there is no point talking to you, since you can not be reasoned with.”
Yeah riiiight..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571933
It looks like FTOP realized that he would have to abandon all mathematical rigor to support this effort.
He learned in a week or so, what DREMT is unable to learn in years, that this is a losing cause.
#2
Theres just one more thing: MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
There could be a multitude of reasons why Ftop has absented himself from the debate, including illness. Your telepathic effort made me briefly think that he was a sock puppet of yours, but I dismissed that thought as he had some mathematical abilities that you have never been able to demonstrate.
I was, and am still 100% convinced that Ftop’s math calculation was correct and that he was able to show that he could simply rotate a triangle in one movement. The only thing that I objected to was conclusions derived from this i.e. that the rotation could not be also performed by more than one movement. Hopefully Ftop will return one day so we can see if he has changed his mind.
DREM , your arrogant disregard for facts is again exemplified by the following –
“Their only error is in mistaking a change of orientation for axial rotation. Oh well.”
As I said above , if the scientists were measuring orbital motion then they would be getting monthly variations from perigee to apogee that are not mentioned in the article, or any other article, that uses laser retroreflection to measure the rotation rate of the Moon.
Oh well, just another bit of bullshit from DREM to add to the collection.
As for your chaotic thought disordered discussion about libration with Tim Folkerts (and a range of other contributors) is concerned, it is a mess.
If libration is so simple for a non rotating moon, why don’t you explain your concept in a couple of coherent sentences.
Tesla* tried it and his conclusion was that the moon rotated on its axis** see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-572886
* in most areas he was an absolute genius, but when he got it wrong…
** Tesla accepted that the orbit was elliptical but then had the horrible conundrum that his bespoke model and the ball on a string all involved circular motion! Sounds familiar.
p.s. By the way where are my twelve questions that you promised? Your PST farewell suggests, that in your rush for the exit, that you forgot your promise. It could be a Q and A on libration? Hit me with your first question!
“As I said above , if the scientists were measuring orbital motion…”
Measuring the change in orientation of the moon, MikeR. Not “measuring orbital motion”. No straw men, please.
I’m happy with the win. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more amusing, DREM’s squirming has reached new heights. The entertainment is well worth the price of admission.
“Measuring the change in orientation of the moon, MikeR. Not measuring orbital motion. No straw men, please.”
DREM, I was under the distinct impression that you thought the change in orientation was simply due to the orbital motion alone. Are are you now wishing to include axial rotation of the Moon?
Iv so, you have come very late to the party, but better late than never.
Let DREM’s squirming continue. I am sure there is more to come.
Wow, you do get confused easily. No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis. They are measuring the change in orientation of the moon, which is indeed due to orbital motion.
DREMT: “the change in orientation of the moon” Yes. DREMT joins the spinner club through the back door, like Gordon with his moon turns. And like Tesla proved with his wheel assembly, the moon changes orientation (turns) on its own axis C once per orbit about the axis of O.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The orientation of the body is changing as it is rotated about some axis emanating from the center of mass
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs248/pdf/class_09_rigid_bodies.pdf
Thanks for confirming the moon rotates about its axis at the center of mass.
Debate over.
The instantaneous net movement of a body via rigid motion is called a rigid displacement, which may result from translation (linear displacement, i.e. a change in position), rotation
(angular displacement, i.e. a change in orientation), or both at the same time
https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf
Debate………..
over.
The orientation of the ball on a string etc is changing because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass. One single motion, a rotation about a fixed axis that is external to the ball.
DREM,
I see you are now adopting the Donald J Trump method of contradicting oneself in consecutive statements*.
DREM from above,
“Measuring the change in orientation of the moon, MikeR. Not measuring orbital motion. No straw men, please.”
Which is followed by his very next comment, where the straw man goes up in flames.
“They are measuring the change in orientation of the moon, which is indeed due to orbital motion.”
DREM your trademark squirming is gettjng even more perversely entertaining as it ascends to new heights.
* DREM, expect to pay royalties to the Grifter in Chief. Rudy is on to you.
OK, MikeR. Sorry that you didn’t understand.
Yes DREM, I will never understand you. In fact I don’t think any one is capable of understanding you.
Evidently you also have major difficulties with understanding yourself, as by your direct contradiction of yourself. See immediately above.
OK, MikeR.
OK DREM,
Let me know if can you think of something original otherwise over and out.
#2
OK, MikeR.
SkepticGoneWild,
Yes,Ftroop is highly appropriate! Great analogy.
Ftroop could be a direct descendant of the Chief Navigator for the Hekawis.
That navigator unfortunately never understood the inertial reference frame of directions, via the stars, and ended up walking around in circles.
Due to the intense confusion, the Hekawis are now called the Fekawis.
#3
OK, MikeR.
@Tyson
Here is a model with two (2) axis of rotation you can specify:
Line 22 rotates about the origin (O in your diagram)
Line 30 rotates about the internal axis (A in your diagram)
If you can find a resonance value where Line 22 = Line 33 that would validate there are two (2) rotations (external and internal) in synchronous rotations.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj
The answer will devolve to the axis (Point A – controlled by Line 30) is an implicit rotation (which means it does not exist and cannot be modeled) but we all agree it is there because the Earth and Moon are in synchronous orbit/axial rotation resonance.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
I prefer Physics constrained simulations because:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard P. Feynman
Now heed that advice.
For some reason (WordPress related?) I have been unable to post comments above and participate in the correspondence overnight ( Oz time) between Ftop and Tyson et al.. Hopefully posting down here, my comment will magically appear.
I am not going to address the geometry in this post, as Tyson, SkepticGoeWild and Ball4 seems to have covered this adequately despite the convoluted responses from Ftop, which made my head spin, and whatever is left of my brain, to precess.
Ftop – “Mathematically, it is not possible to employ an orbit and an internal axis rotation”
All I am going to say on this matter is that, in my depictions, I seem to have managed to do the impossible.
As others and myself have pointed on numerous occasions, the even more fundamental problem that Ftop faces, is the Physics, which he continually ignores at his peril. This aspect cannot be accounted for using his rotating reference frame model.
Ftop, with your version of s=0 (s’=r ) what do you get for the total angular momentum and rotational energy?
If you do the sums you will find that the angular momentum and kinetic energies correspond to the triangle rotating, on an axis through the centre of mass , once per orbit.
Likewise Ftop if you can tackle, using physics, the example discussed below with your non axial rotating model, then you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise you appear to be a limbless black knight as your whole argument has fallen over.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-578131
You seem to have avoided tackling this issue so far, since I raised it with you a week or so ago. I can hazard a guess why but if you are not going to address it, then your obsession with physics free geometry can be regarded, as best as misguided eccentricity. At worst you will lumped in together with the other contrarian fruit cakes.
On the contrarian fruit cake note , I am also really struggling to understand ( it maybe me, not you, but I suspect otherwise) to your objection to using the standard inertial reference frame that physicists have used since the time of Newton.
It is immediately obvious, that determination of whether the triangle is rotating on is axis or not, can be done by simple observation. That is, with respect to the Cartesian axes that pass through the centre of mass of the triangle as it orbits ( or for that matter any other Cartesian axes, as they are all parallel).
Ftop -“I am baffled that this realization isnt obvious to everyone simply by nature of the matrix for performing a rotation and its obvious predictable impact on a point (B) when two rotations are active. Baffled!”
I understand why you are baffled. The blinkers you have got on prevent you from even looking at the Cartesian axes, let alone the boundaries of your computer screen! Take them off at once!
I suspect DREM has been rotating the screen of his device to match the orbital rate, which is why he is convinced by your explanations. I just hope you haven’t been doing likewise.
Ftop in a previous comment shows that he has , understandably, not bothered to read the acres of correspondence that have polluted these pages for the last few years.
“That the only way to keep the redline pointing straight up is to have the object rotate opposite the orbit to maintain the relationship to a distant star”
Yes this is true and well understood with respect to the rotating reference frame of the orbit, but otherwise makes no sense.
This was addressed several years ago via one of my earliest primitive depictions.
https://i.postimg.cc/S43w88r7/dumbell9.gif
As they say “what goes around comes around”, even if takes more than 2 years.
Hey it appeared! Magic works.
MikeR…how can you still not get it!?
Upthread, you agreed that one way to describe the motion of the ball on a string etc is as a single rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Right?
This is called “orbiting”. So, if an object is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Right?
If an object is just “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis”, you see always the same side of the object from the center of revolution. Right?
If an object is “rotating on its own axis” in the opposite direction to the “orbit”, once per “orbit”, then the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same distant star. Right?
The only way you can describe the motion of the ball on a string etc as “rotating on its own axis” while it orbits, is if you define “orbiting” differently. As a translation of the ball along the orbital path.
Regardless of reference frame!
Tyson’s Feynman quote is so appropriate to Ftop’s totally physics free conclusions.
As they say,
If you don’t understand the physics then the geometry is irrelevant.
If you don’t understand reference frames then the physics is irrelevant.
If you don’t understand either, then using Feynman’s first principle, you are definitely the fool.
OK, MikeR. Spend the rest of your life being wrong.
MikeR 6:04 AM
Here’s another quote that bears repeating in light of the simulations that ftop_t is trying to achieve:
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.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584710
“This is called “orbiting”. So, if an object is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Right?”
A: Not right, meaning MikeR is NOT wrong, as when the orbiting object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit like Earth’s moon as shown here by ftop_t, in that case you see same side of the object from the center of revolution:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Study up DREMT because ftop_t shows DREMT has been wrong for life and, go ahead DREMT surprise some readers, actually use the ftop_t provided slider to learn about ref. frame s’ wherein the object has 0 rotations about its own axis.
…learn about accelerated ref. frame s’…
Sure, let’s all pretend “rotation around a fixed axis” does not exist.
Corrected referenced link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552096
Now Ball4 is pretending ftop_t disagrees with me. Lol. Try using the slider to make the object rotate on its own axis whilst it is orbiting. Watch the object orbiting without rotating on its own axis first, thus keeping the same face always pointing towards the center of revolution. Now use the internal axis slider. Report back with your results.
Reporting back: wrong for life DREMT reveals he is observing from accelerated frame s’ writing “Watch the object orbiting without rotating on its own axis first” not the correct inertial frame set up by ftop_t where the object is rotating once per orbit on its own axis proving DREMT wrong.
What a 3ring circus, ftop_t, Tesla, Madhavi, and other commenters MikeR, SGW, Tyson all prove DREMT has been wrong for life when DREMT is caught out observing from an accelerated frame s’. Lol.
From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis, when initially clicking on the link. You will note that it loads with the play button activated on the external axis rotation slider only. The internal axis slider is not moving. The object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit. Now, whilst the external axis slider is automatically moving, try adjusting the internal axis slider. All sides of the object are shown to the center of revolution, whilst it orbits.
Further to MikeR 12:09 AM, in this video, particularly at 52:52, professor Vandiver dispels ftop_t’s mistaken notion that “Mathematically, it is not possible to employ an orbit and an internal axis rotation”
https://youtu.be/GUvoVvXwoOQ?t=3172
Q.E.D.
That sentence from ftop_t is taken completely out of context. What ftop_t has shown is that if an object is orbiting (rotating about an external axis) and rotating about an internal axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
From s=r=1 speed of rotation frame as defined by ftop_t, as DREMT writes, “the object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit” while rotating once on its own axis and the s’ accelerated ref. frame slider can be used to show the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis (o rotations) from which DREMT has been caught out observing by at least ftop_t, SGW, Tyson, Tesla, Madhavi and myself.
All DREMT has to do to change from wrong for life to correct is to observe from ftop_t’s non-accelerated frame s. DREMT won’t do so, ever. Enjoy being wrong for life in your s’ accelerated frame, DREMT, as you provide a lot of entertainment being wrong in these trying times./
…caught out observing from s’ by at least ftop_t, MikeR, SGW, Tyson, Tesla, Madhavi and myself.
9:32am: What ftop_t has shown using s=r=1 is that if an object is orbiting (rotating about an external axis) and rotating about an internal axis more or less than once per orbit, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
DREMT gets a wrong answer because DREMT has been repeatedly caught out observing from an accelerated frame s’.
Wrong, Ball4. From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis, when initially clicking on the link. You will note that it loads with the play button activated on the external axis rotation slider only. The internal axis slider is not moving. The object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit. Now, whilst the external axis slider is automatically moving, try adjusting the internal axis slider. All sides of the object are shown to the center of revolution, whilst it orbits
This statement
“if an object is orbiting (rotating about an external axis) and rotating about an internal axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.”
Is only true for cases other than 1:1 spin-orbit, including the non-spinner 0:1 case. This statement is just another example of non-spinners wanting to play both sides of the court.
Wrong, Tyson.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eeylhdx6gx
From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis, when initially clicking on the link. You will note that it loads with the play button activated on the external axis rotation slider only. The internal axis slider is not moving. The object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit. Now, whilst the external axis slider is automatically moving, try adjusting the internal axis slider. All sides of the object are shown to the center of revolution, whilst it orbits.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:25 AM
I have here, https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr, taken three snapshots of the Desmos simulation as provided, and calculated the rotation of a vector connecting point A to point B on the triangle.
Point A is the center of mass and point B is north of A at the start, so that rB/A is at 84.15 degrees to the X axis. rA is the position vector of point A and rB is the position vector of point B.
rB/A moves rotates from 84.15 to 174.15 (90) degrees between Position 1 and Position 3.
In summary, rB/A rotation is equal to the external rotation of 90 degrees (1:1), all in the OXY frame. Meanwhile rB/A has not rotated with respect to the moving frame.
Q.E.D.
That happens because the object is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the object changing orientation with respect to an inertial frame. How else would the particles of a body undergoing rotation about an external axis form concentric circles about that axis?
Study Madhavi Fig. 2(b). The rectangle is rotating about point O, and not about its own center of mass.
This whole issue is so simple that you miss the point altogether. You always come back to “the object is changing its orientation relative to the inertial reference frame, therefore it is rotating on its own axis”. That’s it. You cannot see beyond that.
A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584990
A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.
A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation only in an accelerated frame.
From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis in the s’ accelerated frame as ftop_t demonstrates when initially clicking on the link.
Wrong, Ball4. Nobody is looking at anything from “the accelerated frame” because from that frame, the object itself does not even appear to be moving!
Observed from inertial frame the orbiting object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit as ftop_t demonstrates. Observed from an accelerated frame the orbiting object is not rotating on its own axis as ftop_t also demonstrates.
It’s as simple as that. DREMT & others simply reveal the location of the object observation with their comments.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Incorrect.
Rotation within a frame will always exhibit the same behavior
Example 1
A wheel rolling forward
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/d72aqwxzdw
Click on 4
Click on 2
The red dot will be in front, behind, and appear on all sides of the rotation while translating forward in the frame
Example 2
A ball spinning in the air
Slide 4 & 2 back to zero
Click on 4
Click on 3
The red dot will be above, below and appear on all sides of the axis of rotation while translating up in the frame.
Example 3
A basketball shooting at a basket
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rkbtkglg1e
Click on 4
Click on 2
The red dot will be above, below and appear on all sides of the axis of rotation while translating diagonally in the frame.
Example 4
A scrambler ride spinning at a fair
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xa4ra2vw2h
Click on 4
The red dot stays on the outside of the ride
Set 4 back to zero
Click on 4
Click on 5
The red dot will now be above, below and appear on all sides of the axis of rotation WITHIN the frame that is ROTATING on a circular path around the central post of the ride at (0,0)
Like all the other examples, the red dot will act exactly the same within the frame and all sides of the object will face the origin during the ride…
The behavior IN THE FRAME is the same for every example. The only difference is how the frame moves – horizontally, vertically, diagonally, rotationally
Ftop,
I am not sure what the point of your 4 examples other than to illustrate the following points.
1. You are remarkably proficient with desmos, which we all think is amazing and wonderful.
2. That we all agree that the red point is rotating on an axis around the centre of mass as it is translating. See the Cartesian axes and point 1.
The physics of linear momentum, angular momentum and energetics is well understood for all 4 cases, if you care to consult the internet or most physics books which cover these examples.
With regard to the scrambler, an observer at the red point would see diagonally opposite his friend who is sitting in the cage with him. They both, if they had blinkers on and stared straight ahead , like yourself they would believe they are not rotating on their respective axes, or even rotating at all ( except for the nausea and wind resistance). This latter point was covered by Copernicus some time ago.
More blah blah from MikeR for ftop_t to ignore.
Is it better to be ignored by the monkey or by the organ grinder?
Ignorance has always been the monkey’s approach but I was hoping better from Ftop who seems to prefer to spend much time geometrically grinding his organs and ignores physics related questions.
Accordingly Ftop has a lot to answer.
Additionally Ftop’s “piece de resistance” desmotic elliptical orbit lacks a focus and doesn’t withstand any close scrutiny.
Ftop would of course prefer to ignore this as well. As the say “ignorance is bliss” and Ftop clearly prefers to remain in his permanent state of bliss.
ibid.
JK – Excellent explanation. Your English is just fine. Don’t forget that US contributors like DREM also do not speak it as a first language. In fact I’m probably the only native English-speaker (i.e. English person) here, and I understand you perfectly.
His English is fine, he just missed the point.
Ftop your model is simply not applicable to the Moon’s orbit for the reasons stated. Yes or no?
No more “moon’s axial rotation” argument, please. That has been definitively settled in the “Non-Spinner’s” favor, so it’s time to move on.
Yes, and Trump won the election.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Let the debating start
https://i.postimg.cc/vHL9ncPY/145280.jpg
You like Sabine don’t you, here she explains irreversible climate change:
https://youtu.be/WLIQWVdgE5g?t=386
It seems likely at some point, we will have an irreversible climate change, and leave our Ice Age.
But it seems unlikely when our oceans have average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Now a less irreversible climate change, is sinking into a glaciation period, because +100,000 years might seem like an irreversible climate change.
Is the running mean now at an all-time high? Or was it higher in 2016? I can’t tell from the graph and I’m too lazy to figure it out.
Either way it looks like global warming has “paused” for the past 4 years 😉
Lets assume youre kidding about the new ‘pause’.
The fact that 2020 matches a recent super el nino year, 2016, suggests the underlying warming trend continues.
A lengthy la Nia could subject us to another 18 months or so of denialist prattle about the trend going into reverse. Which would be the exact same 18 months of prattle we’ll hear whatever the temperature is actually doing, only more frustrating.
Or it may be the beginning of a 2 to 4 decade decline in Global temperatures as we have experienced in the past. And the world will prattle for cheap energy once again. Time will tell. Models won’t!
And the “sky is falling assholes” continue to foam at the mouth with every temperature report. Just stfu. There are medications that will help you control your delusions.
Nobody is foaming at the mouth. What drugs are you on?
barry – Quite.
Lance cyrus
” Either way it looks like global warming has “paused” for the past 4 years… ”
*
No it didn’t: Four years ago, UAH had the highest anomaly since record begin in Dec 1978, due to the third-strongest El Nino in 2015/16, after 1982/83 and 1997/98.
Thus no wonder if a “pause” occurs after that highest anomaly. Each trend following 2016 will stay negative as long as a new El Nino of equal power occurs.
*
But if you compare 1997/98 and 2015/16 together with the following years until 2002/2020, relatively to their respective begin, you see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11H1Y959how-bVRQLkUW2mV5OyIBty5Ra/view
This is a fair comparison.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, did you mean “AS LONG AS a new El Nino of equal power occurs.” or maybe “UNTIL a new El Nino of equal power occurs.”?
AverageJon
Thx, I meant of course the 2nd alternative.
Is there a significant difference between a staircase and a ramp that have the same slope and the same change in elevation?
If the temperature has been rising at a rate of +.14 degree C / decade for the past 40 years, does it matter whether the graph resembles a staircase (with landings) or a ramp?
Seems 2020 also saw the warmest Northern Hemisphere fall/autumn (S-O-N)in the 42 year UAH satellite record (+0.65 deg.C), exceeding the previous record of +0.61 deg.C set in 2019.
Oh my goodness. Looks like we are all going to boil alive!
So they same folks who said it wasn’t happening, now say not to worry about it. Comforting.
We had a 40 plus year cooling period from the late 1930’s to the late 1970’s. And now we are in a warming period. Temps go up. Temps go down. We’ve had warmer temperatures in times past.
Alarmists will do what they do. There is always something that causes the sky to fall with them.
Yes, Florida has been under water before.
Denialists will do what they do, e.g. to think that the Moon doesn’t spin in the same time it orbits.
What exactly is the difference between you and these people?
J.-P. D.
And people who have weak arguments use pejorative terms like “denialists” to anyone skeptical of the alleged science, comparing them to Holocaust deniers. Only assholes do that.
SGW. No. The word denier has meaning all on its own. It means somone who denies some facts and reality, in this case science.
Like the rotating Moon deniers, just keep returning and denying reality.
Not at all about the Holocaust.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/caroline-lucas-apologises-for-comparing-climate-change-denial-to-holocaust-denial-1.483207
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-denial-worse-than-holocaust-denial
I could post countless more articles, Nate.
The denier label is a cheap shot, and I don’t put up with that bullshit.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/caroline-lucas-apologises-for-comparing-climate-change-denial-to-holocaust-denial-1.483207
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-denial-worse-than-holocaust-denial
I could post countless more articles, Nate.
The denier label is a cheap shot, and I don’t put up with that bullshit.
If one or two idiots wanna compare it to the Holocaust…it doesnt cancel the word. Dont join cancel culture.
Gordon is an HIV denier. Simply no better way to describe it. DREMT and Clint are Moon spin deniers, same thing.
The origin of the word “denier” dates back to about 1350-1400. I think you’ll find that this is slightly earlier than the Holocaust. Anyone who whines that the use of the word is an attempt to equate him with a Holocaust-Denier is trying to hide something. (Not to mention doing an injustice to Holocaust Deniers.)
But perhaps anyone who wants to continue this mode of asserting their victimhood could explain how it is possible to sustain two separate modes of denial WITHOUT resorting to the same patterns of reasoning. All denialism basically uses the same arguments. If you don’t like the association, then stand further away.
Looks slightly lower when viewed on my mobile, but I am due an eye test.
Using my very precise scientific equipment I determine that we are not quite at the 2016 peak. No record.
Pro-tip your calculator makes a dandy strait edge on the screen.
Why does my comment not post? Am I using a wrong word or something?
Tim S
Very probably you are, e.g. the ‘d c’ character sequence (without the blank in between).
This is what we name here the “Do.ug Cot.ton” syndrome.
J.-P. D.
I know exactly what you mean about that guy — the whole story about his misunderstanding of that subject he likes. I do not think I am using any of those words. Sometimes I can post without any problem, like maybe now!
Maybe you underestimate the worldwide amount of character sequences containing them, starting with e.g. URLs, for example UAH’s own monthly data URL.
Roy Spencer can publish it in his head posts of course, but we can’t do in ours.
J.-P. D.
I’mn so glad that pause we’ve been promised for so many years is just around the corner.
Yet no idea what it is you think you’ve been promised.
I think it more important that those who keep promising a pause or a reversal have no idea. They could promise me a unicorn, but I would not go out and start studying unicorns. So it is with “pauses” in the warming.
There is something strange here.
Both US48 and Australia warmer than Arctic ?
I thought November was qquite cold in USA and also in Australia, like the rest of SH ?
Look up “temperature anomaly.”
Re US and AU being cold. Maybe they were, we don’t have the map yet. Possible to have cold areas on a warm globe. Also could be a lot of variability within an area as large as US/AU. Impossible to be everywhere on two continents at once, so your personal perception is not as scientific as you think.
Im refering to Climate Reanalyser´s temperature anomaly which I check every day, and here has the US and Australia been much colder than the Arctic, which has been around +5 degrees all November.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
The baseline for these anomalies is worked out by taking average temperatures for the period 1979 to 2000 and making that the zero line. Furthermore, this average is calculated in grids 0.5 lat – 0.5 lon.
To put it in easy to understand terms:
The baseline (0.0C) for the Arctic is the average temperature for that region from 1979 to 2000
The baseline (0.0C) for Australia is the average temperature for that region from 1979 to 2000
The average temperature of the Arctic for that period might be 20C colder than for Australia in the same period, but they are both baselined to zero, in order to make it easier to compare changes between them (and all around the globe).
Absolute temperatures are not being compared in the reanalysis, because they are more interested in making it easier to compare changes in temperature across different regions.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/91/8/2010bams3001_1.xml
Frank Marella Olsen
You can’t compare the measurement ‘2 m above surface’ with that made in the lower troposphere at about 4 km altitude.
My little guess: above Australia and CONUS, the LT experienced during November huge poleward advection streams moving from the Tropics to the Arctic.
J.-P. D.
Can’t argue the data so for now not much to say, other then this argument is far from over.
Salvatore, it’s nice to see you posting here again.
Why isn’t the argument over, Salvatore?
You have been wrong for over a decade. You don’t understand the science. No one believes anything you have to say and you’re seen as, frankly, a fool. Why are you unable to change in view of the facts?
David, being arrogant and nasty doesn’t mean that you’re right and it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re smart… it just means that you’re arrogant and nasty.
A lot of people like, and respect, Salvatore. In my opinion, he understands the science better than you ever will. You see him as being wrong because he didn’t predict the anomalous burst of warmth over the last few years. Not many people could have predicted it… but this burst of warmth is transient and it’s about to end.
I’ll give you a little tip… being arrogant and nasty only works for people who actually know what they’re talking about. People who don’t know what they’re talking about just come off looking like assholes.
And a burst of warmth that was predicted by the alarmists to be much, much, much, much, much, much warmer than it has actually been.
Like a “hockey stick” or some such.
“Not many people could have predicted it”
Except for the IPCC, and anyone else who understands the main stream view of AGW. Plenty of people made bets that it would warm in this period.
David, please stop trolling.
Nobody believes the rate of increase will stay linear this century, Call me alarmist if you like but the increase since 2010 is about +.5 deg – or about +5 deg per century !
You idiot DTW. It is obvious the data is fraudulent!
Probably corrupted by the same people involved in the election fraud!
And using the same corrupt software!
My legal team is on the case as we speak!
Watch out NASA!
Watch out DTW!
Watch out Dr Spencer!
UAH LT temperatures are accelerating — over the entire dataset, the acceleration is now 0.029 degC/decade^2, with a 1-sigma uncertainty of 0.012 degC/dec2.
The warming for the entire satellite data set has been driven by the oceans. This is not rocket science. Just check the data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.2/trend
It took awhile after the end of the recent El Nino but now the oceans are starting to cool. With a small lag the satellite data will also cool. It will likely start in December or January and continue for several months.
To understand where we really are we will need to wait another 9 months. The ocean cooling should settle in by then.
I realize there are still people who think the atmosphere is warming the oceans. They will never be convinced by science so let them wallow in their ignorance.
What is special about 2010?
President Obama was in office?
China’s increase in CO2 emission which started after 2000?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN
It seems like cherry picking.
And China is now focusing on being world leader of nuclear power- and this has nothing to do with the religion of global warming.
The zealots could not prevent China from being the leader of the world in CO2 emission and are mostly against the only way that does and will reduce CO2 emission.
And zealots supported burning trees because it was “renewable”- renewable only until one burn down all forests.
Quite clueless.
Got a question for the atmospheric scientists here. I strongly believe that what goes on in the Arctic is mainly due to multi-decadal oscillations, not from atmospheric CO2.
Here is one factor I was thinking of, and I was wondering if there has been research done on this, and what was determined. Whenever the Arctic ice is in a below normal extent phase like it is now, does this allow for more Arctic Ocean heat to transfer to the atmosphere than what would occur if there was an above normal Arctic ice extent? And if true, does this Arctic Ocean cooling event lead to the next sea ice expansion event gradually over a few decades. Then, as the Arctic ice is in an above normal extent phase, this limits the ocean heat from escaping to the atmosphere, and the ocean heat builds beneath the ice as a result. The increasing Arctic ocean heat slowly and methodically melts the Arctic ice down over a few decades until the Arctic Ocean cooling event begins again as more Arctic ocean water is exposed to the atmosphere.
I know that the global warming alarmists have entertained the thought that as the Arctic ice melts down, the sun’s radiant heat will heat up the Arctic ocean even more because of the lack of albedo, exacerbating the melting as a positive feedback. And this will continue until all of the ice is melted away. But I don’t consider this to be a real threat because at the time of summer solstice, there is still a considerable amount of ice in the Arctic reflecting sunlight. By the time the Arctic ice reaches its extent minimum in September, the ecliptic is already down near the equator, and there isn’t near the radiant heat energy warming up the Arctic as there was in July. I think this runaway feedback idea warming the Arctic Ocean is exaggerated. It really isn’t that much of an effect at all.
The first thing I would think about is that, like everywhere, there is a lag between warmth supply and its consequence.
The second thing I would think about is that though the Sun is Earth’s one and only power supply, it is not the major climate driver.
The energy stored by the oceans IS the major climate driver.
And thus, my little finger tells me that ice melting in the Arctic in September (and, what you do not seem to know: in October in between as well)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
has fewer to do with solar irradiance in September than with the temperature of the Arctic ocean in June-July-August.
J.-P. D.
“Bindidon says:
December 1, 2020 at 4:44 PM
The first thing I would think about is that, like everywhere, there is a lag between warmth supply and its consequence.
The second thing I would think about is that though the Sun is Earths one and only power supply, it is not the major climate driver.
The energy stored by the oceans IS the major climate driver.”
Energy stored in ocean is the major driver.
And arctic ocean is small part of world.
But as entire ocean warms, it does cause less polar sea ice in arctic and has large effect on global temperature. Not only does ice free artic ocean prevent cold artic air from invading from the arctic region, but a warming ocean causes most of entire ocean surface to warmer.
Or little effect upon tropical ocean, but it’s only 40% of entire ocean, or the warmer ocean effects the average surface temperature of the remaining 60% of the ocean.
And surface temperature of all the oceans, control global air temperature. The average surface temperature of all ocean is about 17 C. Tropics ocean is 26 C, and 60% of rest of ocean is about 11 C.
And global warming is “mostly” concerning polar amplification.
Or air above frozen arctic ocean can become quite cold, if liquid it’s not as cold as the liquid ocean surface- or minus 10 or 20 C is not possible, but happens if liquid surface is insulated with frozen ice.
In terms of temperature of entire ocean , it seems to me one has include geothermal heat of ocean floor, in addition to just sunlight.
The effect Geothermal heat has to consider long periods of time, but global warming and cooling is about a long time. Plus got consider that arctic flowing cold water into ocean depths which balanced by the warming of geothermal heating.
Anyhow our average temperature of the ocean is about 3.5 C, warming to 4 C, would have large effect and cooling to 3 C would be very bad news.
Or when ocean ocean has been as warm as 4 C, there has been a much warmer world.
And temperature of our ocean during the million years of our Ice Age has remained in the temperature range of about 1 to 5 C- but the last 1/2 million years has been coldest part of our Ice Age, and 5 C ocean may not have occurred during this time.
And there no chance our ocean could warm to 5 C, within 1000 years, though within centuries, maybe 4 C.
And within last few centuries it appears to have been warmed by about .2 C
But in terms of 5000 year trend, it seems to me the ocean has been cooling.
And seems doubtful to me the ocean will warm as much it was +5000 years ago within 2 centuries from now.
But it likewise seem doubtful that we have some super volcano erupting within couple centuries and 75% of volcanic activity in within the ocean.
So I don’t think we going have something like Yellowstone type eruption {Yellowstone super volcano, which would destroy US and parts of Canada- and there lots other super volcano in the world]. So don’t think any of them will happen {soon}.
But it seems if had super volcanic eruption, I have no reason to assume there is not 75% chance of it happening in ocean and we “could” barely notice it. Or it could have happened, say 100 year ago, {again, quite unlikely- though within 10,000 years, it has much better odds} and we have not discovered it, yet.
Had to look:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46248
And:
“A volcano the size of New Mexico or the British Isles has been identified under the Pacific Ocean, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) east of Japan, making it the biggest volcano on Earth and one of the biggest in the solar system.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/9/130905-tamu-massif-shatsky-rise-largest-volcano-oceanography-science/
Yup, they do happen- though what Iceland and Hawaii, but in terms of finding such monsters sleeping under water.
I’m no atmospheric scientist, but if Arctic temps are caused by multidecadal oscillations, why do we not see that in the satellite record?
Why do we instead see a fairly steady rise over forty years of 1C, with the usaual interannual fluctuations?
https://tinyurl.com/y3qvhkov
Over the longer term there could be an oscillation, but it sure looks like the latter period is warmer than the previous, and the rise has been steeper.
https://tinyurl.com/y2ao5mcd
The basic shape is the same as global for that long period, with the small hump around the 1940s and the longer, higher rise beyond.
https://tinyurl.com/y2chgbjb
Some eyeball evidence that the Arctic oscillation is linked to global, rather than an isolated phenomenon.
Barry,
Your question is actually easy to answer. The satellite data starts during the -AMO which then became positive in the 1990s. It is still positive today. The satellite data (and Arctic sea ice levels) match that trend very nicely.
However, correlation is not enough. We need to see what happens when the AMO goes negative. That should happen relatively soon (within 7 years?).
My own personal guess is the PDO will go negative in 2021 or 2022. The AMO will go negative in 2024. This will start a period of cooling that will negate much of the warming we’ve seen since the 1990s by the time we reach the mid 2030s.
Maybe that will return climate science back to reality and the oceans can be studied to determine just how long the Modern Warm Period will last.
Ok, Richard, Rob thinks it’s Arctic oscillations, you think the answer to his question about Arctic temps is the AMO. As Arctic temps match global fairly well (but more warming in recent times), we’ll put global temps with AMO together over the long term and see how they correlate.
https://tinyurl.com/yy3l8ube
Looks like some correlation over the past 120 years, but not for the 60s and 70s, and AMO has plateaued for the last 20 ywars while temperature keep rising.
I guess we can wait and see if global temps turn down when AMO does. There is also the very real possibility that much of the AMO profile comes from aliasing gflobal temps…
My own personal guess is the PDO will go negative in 2021 or 2022. The AMO will go negative in 2024. This will start a period of cooling that will negate much of the warming we’ve seen since the 1990s by the time we reach the mid 2030s.
Average temps of the 1990s was 0.01C for UAH global temp data.
Average of the last 5 years is 0.37C.
You think ‘much of’ this warming will be erased.
I will bet you either $100 or $1000 that the temperature in the mid-30s (av of 2033-2037) will be warmer than 0.30C
I’m good for it. I’m basing my bet on AGW, so if you think you haver a better predictor of future temps, take on the bet.
Barry, no one climate factor is going to match global temperatures exactly as 1) there are multiple factors and 2) the global data is not very reliable prior to satellites.
The AMO does match well enough to surmise it is one of the more important climate drivers.
The 1990s average was significantly reduced by the Pinatubo eruption (you know, one of those other climate factors). I wouldn’t expect a return to the .01 C value either. In addition, there are two other smaller climate warming factors still in operation.
What I do expect, if my assumptions about the PDO and AMO hold, is that we will see drops in the satellite values to about .1-.2 C during EMSO neutral NH summers. I also expect to see the Arctic sea ice begin to increase.
However, while the AMO drives much of the Arctic loss of sea ice, the sea ice won’t return immediately. It is the loss of sea ice that has the biggest influence on the warm Arctic. As a result the temperatures won’t drop back to the late 20th century levels.
At the likely increased rate of inflation coming after the pandemic your $1000 bet is more likely to be worth about $100 in 2037. And, considering I will be a nonagenarian by that time it’s not a good bet that I will even be around to collect. As much as I would love to make a reasonable bet (average will be below .3 C) it is hardly worth whatever effort it would take.
The AMO does match well enough to surmise it is one of the more important climate drivers.
What if it is simply aliasing global temps? Has anyone checked to see if there is any kind of lag from one to the other? That should help us see which might be leading temperature shifts for a start.
This model says the AMO is secondary:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
Barry, it really depends on whether you attribute the sea ice loss to warmer AMO waters or to AGW. I’ll go with physics which clearly shows water has a much larger effect on ice than does the air.
Once you decide to accept basic physics it pretty obvious the Arctic warming is due to the ice free oceans warming the air. The causal chain is simple and fits known science.
Those who choose to ignore physics will continue to fool themselves.
Svante, I did get a good laugh out of your link. Essentially, they claim that ASSUMED effects of AGW explain all the warming so there’s nothing left for natural cycles. It is pure circular reasoning. Only a total fool would do anything but laugh at such nonsense.
Their model matched global temperatures without an independent AMO.
Anyway, the ‘O’ means oscillation so it’s pretty irrelevant for global warming. The cycle time is about 60 years and the amplitude is about +/- 0.2 C, small compared to global warming started 250 years ago and has added about 1.1 C.
See four AMO cycles factored out in fig. 10(c).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Svante, climate oscillations are not sine waves. Their effects vary over time. Claiming they cannot produce warming over a few centuries is silly. It is the typical science denial we see from climate cultists.
That said, it is not my claim that the AMO has produced long term warming. It has produced about .3 C of temporary global warming most of which is seen in the Arctic and near Arctic. In addition, ENSO appears to have added some short term warming in recent years.
When these short term factors go away so will most of the warming that the climate cult has been celebrating as evidence for CAGW. Not all the warming will go away but enough to clearly demonstrate that CO2 emissions are not a problem. It will also demonstrate climate models are pure junk.
Finally, do you realize models are not science? They are the opinions of the programmers. That the models of your cult programmers match their cult beliefs is hardly interesting.
Richard M says:
Svante, climate oscillations are not sine waves.
The AMO waves are shown in the paper.
Claiming they cannot produce warming over a few centuries is silly.
Such long term warming can only come from a TOA imbalance.
Oceans are also warming so the energy is not taken from there.
That said, it is not my claim that the AMO has produced long term warming. It has produced about .3 C of temporary global warming most of which is seen in the Arctic and near Arctic.
Yes, temperatures could decline for a few decades. It doesn’t matter in the long run, it just means that global warming will come back at double speed.
In addition, ENSO appears to have added some short term warming in recent years.
ENSO is short term and therefore even more irrelevant.
Again, ‘O’ means oscillation, no net contribution.
You don’t need models, you only need to see the radiative forcing fig. 4 to understand which way we are heading.
Quotes got lost, hope you can remember what you said ☺
I wish we had a satellite record that went back 100 years. That would answer a lot of questions. So, we are left with surmising instead. And one of mine is that the Arctic ice was at an extent maximum when the satellite record began. And the four decade decline of the Arctic ice just looks like something unusual is going on. It is worth noting that the sea ice decline is slowing down during the past 13 years.
We have other records of sea ice prior to the satellite record.
Since 1953: https://tinyurl.com/ojz3krq
Since 1850: https://tinyurl.com/jj7v3cw
Since 1901: https://tinyurl.com/y6e896fu
The latter link is to a study put together by climate ‘skeptics’.
Rob Mitchell,
You are exactly right. This point has been made by skeptics for the last 20 years. It became obvious when the sea ice reached an equilibrium point in 2007. The AMO is the primary driver of Arctic sea ice although ENSO does have some short term influence.
When this is added to the long term ocean warming (last 400 years) driven by the MOC, you have the warming from the Little Ice Age explained very simply and without any need for significant warming from CO2.
Richard, I worked in Alaska back in the summer of 2007, and I noticed the polar easterlies were particularly strong that year with a lot of southerly components. This had the effect of pushing the ice on the Beaufort Sea side towards the North Pole, thus compacting the ice. The alarmists got all excited about it and they thought the ice was melting away to oblivion. How many predictions of an ice-free Arctic did you see immediately after that year? I know there were several, and with devout conviction it was going to happen just within a few years. I knew those predictions were nonsense because I was forecasting weather and sea conditions off the northern slope of Alaska back then. I knew wind vectors have by far more of an effect on the Arctic ice than atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Reached an equilibrium point in 2007? How the hell do you figure that?
The minimum extent record was broken again in 2012. The trend is a strong decline, and the trend is statistically significant.
Annual ice has declined, but the “ice free” predictions were made about Summer sea ice in the Arctic. Here’s the graph for that.
https://tinyurl.com/y2ew33x2
“Ice free” = less than 1 million sq/km in September, as it is expected there will be some thicker glaciers still tonguing into the ocean from Greenland.
Predictions ranged from early as 2013, but most predicted to the middle of this century, maybe 1930-40 at the earliest.
Barry, why is it so many science illiterates think a trend is something magical? What part of “reached an equilibrium point in 2007” did you not understand? Here is the data since 2006.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MASIE-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent.png
Does that look like “a strong decline”? Looks more like a few dips here and there followed by returns to the mean.
What happened is warm AMO waters slowly ate away at the sea ice between 1995-2007. At that point it appears to have reached a new equilibrium. When the AMO goes negative the sea ice will slowly return although a negative PDO could speed up the process.
Once that has occurred we will reach a new equilibrium which will likely be lower than the 1980s but higher than today.
Neat trick using a logarithmic scale and a myopic view.
Still, your mean is going down.
The trend since 2006 is not statistically significant. You can’t say whether there is a trend or not. Failing to disprove the null doesn’t therefore prove it.
You need more data.
Here is a way to do it. We’ll retain the annual cycle.
https://tinyurl.com/yygdsd89
Doesn’t look like the down trend has levelled off at all since 2006.
If we want statistically significant trends, we remove the annual cycle.
https://tinyurl.com/y6qq2rlc
Don’t see any indication that the decline of sea ice has slowed since 2006.
The only way you could get that impression is if you isolate the data from 2006 from the rest of the data.
Svante, no log scale was used. Try again.
Barry, torturing the data does NOT change what is obvious from a simple quick glance at the data. There is no sign of any additional reductions is the sea ice. Almost 15 years of the highest forcing ever from CO2/CH4 increases and yet the ice doesn’t change.
What this tells any reasonable person is the CO2/CH4 increases were NOT responsible for the initial ice loss either. And, guess what? We have another candidate that can easily replace it. It’s called the AMO. Interestingly, the AMO also explains all the anecdotal observations of losses in the early 20th century.
Occam’s razor is your friend.
Richard M says:
“Svante, no log scale was used.”
You are right, I was wrong!
I have seen statements that CO2 is 20% of the overall greenhouse effect. I think it should be closer to maybe 7% at most. Water vapor content (mole percent) in the tropics is 50 to 100 times CO2.
What is the answer?
Tim S
A very short answer: CO2’s activity starts where that of H2O in WV form stops, because it is a condensing gas: above the Tropopause, till an altitude of about 50 km.
And its effect, namely to lower the efficiency of Earth’s energy output to space through IR interception at high altitudes, IMHO didn’t really begin yet.
I know of a really great paper, but unfortunately it was written in French:
documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1
J.-P. D.
You wrote:
“A very short answer: CO2s activity starts where that of H2O in WV form stops, because it is a condensing gas: above the Tropopause, till an altitude of about 50 km.
And its effect, namely to lower the efficiency of Earths energy output to space through IR interception at high altitudes, IMHO didnt really begin yet.”
At some high enough altitude the greenhouse effect reverses and becomes a cooling effect because contrary to the hype, the GG’s do not “trap” heat, they transfer heat. At what altitude do you think the cooling effect begins, and since CO2 does not condense, is it possible that increasing CO2 produces a net cooling effect due to convective heat transfer and latent heat from cloud formation and rain at high altitude?
Tim S
” At some high enough altitude the greenhouse effect reverses and becomes a cooling effect because contrary to the hype, the GG’s do not ‘trap’ heat, they transfer heat. ”
This is simply wrong.
1. Apart from NASA’s bloodily simplifying discourse, no one says that IR intercepting gases would ‘trap’ heat!
That, Tim S, is nonsense spread out by people who don’t understand the difference between heat and radiation.
2. The greenhouse effect never ‘reverses’ because it is nothing else than the fact that Earth’s IR radiation is absorbed by IR-sensitive molecules and reemitted by these in all directions: half down, half up on average, and hence less of it reaches outer space directly.
3. Moreover, as pretty good explained by Dufresne / Treiner in their 2011 paper, the higher this takes place where CO2 is present (up to 50 km), the lower will be the energy reradiated, because this energy depends on the temperature of the reemitting molecules (between 200 and 250 K).
4. Above the tropopause (around 12 km), water vapor becomes, AFAIK, less and less significant compared with CO2.
J.-P. D.
1. The word ‘trap’ is used as a convenient shorthand in scientific papers.
GHGs abosrb radiation and pass the enrgy along throgh re-emission or collision. This goes on throughout the atmosphere where they are present, until eventually radiation escapes to space (which is how the atmosphere cools). The optical properties of a gas don’t suddenly reverse at a certain altitude.
You are incorrect. I stated that the effect reverses, not the optical properties. The optical properties do not need to change for the effect to change. The back radiation effect is to slow the cooling of the earth to outer space, not to trap heat. Cooling of the earth is slowed because the gases are giving back some radiant energy although at a lower intensity. cooling is, not stopped (except possibly when there is a temperature inversion in hot high pressure weather). GHG’s in the lower atmosphere keep the earth warmer than it would be without them. Humid areas cool much slower than dry areas.
In the upper atmosphere the heat transfer effect is the opposite. Instead of slowing the heat loss by back radiation, the GHG’s increase the rate of radiant heat transfer (loss) and cool the atmosphere faster than it would cool without them. The EFFECT is the opposite because radiant heat transfer works both ways (I can’t use that forbidden word, but the opposite effect is transmission).
Agreed. If CO2 impedes heat radiated from the surface from reaching space, it must also impede heat radiated from higher altitude from returning to the surface. So, increasing CO2 enhances cooling when heat is convected above the break-even altitude.
Thus, there is both a heating and a cooling potential from increasing CO2. Which one wins out depends upon the state of convection.
“the GHGs increase the rate of radiant heat transfer (loss) and cool the atmosphere faster than it would cool without them”
The point is this cooling ability of these molecules is really no different than the ability of the last fiber glass molecules on the surface of my attic insulation to pass the heat on to the air.
Adding more fiberglass decreases the heat transfer, or increases the temp difference across the batt.
Adding more co2 decreases the heat trsnsfer or increases the temp difference from bottom to top of atmosphere.
Tim S,
As with any thermal barrier GHGs cause the warm side to warm further and the cool side to cool further. And because the atmospheric lapse is positive for the bulk of Earth this causes warming down low and cooling up high. And that’s exactly what UAH observes. The TLT minus TLS trend is +0.42C/decade with TLT being +0.14C/decade and TLS being -0.28C/decade.
There is an interesting caveat with central Antarctica where the lapse rate is often negative that we can discuss if you like.
The atmospheric lapse rate does not cause “warming down low and cooling up high”!
It’s the other way around. The heat transfer from surface to tropopause causes the lapse rate.
ClintR, The tropopause isn’t the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA). The effects mentioned above are a warming in the Tropophere and a cooling above in the Stratosphere. For a (nearly) constant lapse rate, if the height of the tropopause increases (which has been detected) with a (nearly) fixed temperature at the tropopause, the result would be warming at the lowest levels near the surface.
If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.
No one knows , it cannot be measured , but here is a fun fact , if you squint just right you can see CO2
https://i.postimg.cc/MKzG4nrM/gretaface.jpg
That is what I thought. The two gases have very different properties, so it would seem very difficult to estimate the effect of different mixtures, but it does seem that CO2 should have a stronger effect at the same concentration as water vapor.
Paper I read years ago had CO2 contribution to global surface budget at 9% – 26%.
Some things to think of are that WV thins out with altitude, while the CO2 remains relatively concentrated higher up, so there is a changing effect with altitude.
There is overlap in the bands of absorp.tion between the two gases, but the absorp.tion lines are very thin, and the frequencies are not exact. Think of it as stripes on a window – WV covers some part of the window, and CO2 (and other IR-absorbing gases) are stripes on different parts of the window.
(Tim, I wonder if you had been trying to post the word absorp.tion before, when you were having trouble. It’s another one of the weird anomalous letter-strings that breaks the site)
Hey Tim, this paper is (a bit) more recent than whatever I read over a decade ago.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014287
Puts CO2 greenhouse effect at 20% of total (incl water vapour).
LOL! Did you just propose a climate model produced by Gavin Schmidt as objective evidence? He is entitled to his opinion, but I am sure there are others, and I now feel very confident that 20% is an extreme upper limit and the actual number is much less. After all, a wild guess (WAG) is just a wild guess.
That paper has 4 authors.
You are welcome to look for the work of other authors on the same question.
https://scholar.google.com/
Where you can find more recent papers such as:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Gea-Banacloche/publication/258606621_Simple_model_to_estimate_the_contribution_of_atmospheric_CO2_to_the_Earth's_greenhouse_effect/links/54bd0cf20cf218da9390b983/Simple-model-to-estimate-the-contribution-of-atmospheric-CO2-to-the-Earths-greenhouse-effect.pdf
positing an upper limit of 24% contribution CO2 to the greenhouse effect.
Has science become a voting game now? Maybe the Russian model is the only model that is correct. At some point common sense combined leads to the conclusion that some people are trying too hard to create exciting news.
I thought you were interested in seeking potential answers to a scientific question. It appears I was mistaken.
I stated that Schmidt is entitled to his opinion, and I am sure that he can express his opinion with a lot of scientific flare, but it is still just his opinion. Having more people state the same opinion does not make it more correct, or most importantly, make it more possible to predict something with such a high level of complexity and uncertainty. Regional predictions for defined conditions have a better chance of being close to reality. Whole earth predictions that are proven to be inaccurate are therefore proven to be unreliable.
This was your query:
“I have seen statements that CO2 is 20% of the overall greenhouse effect. I think it should be closer to maybe 7% at most.”
I hunted up a couple of papers to help you. I found them in google scholar with the search terms based purely on your query, and without inserting any percentage values. I didn’t care about the authors or the results. They were the first and only 2 papers I found.
I didn’t expect any thanks, but neither did I expect you to piss on my effort. Either way, you can do your own research.
barry, if you believe Schmidt that is on you. Most people including his followers understand that he is an advocate and his work should be looked at as speculative.
Belief has nothing to do with it. There is information available for you to process if your curiosity is genuine. I linked the two papers I found, one not by Schmidt, and yet you bang on about Schmidt.
Your interesat in this is clearly driven by something other than curiosity and learning about the topic. The link to google scholar is available to you if you can tear yourself away from repeating your opinions on Schmidt.
In case I’m wrong – a regional approach to your query isn’t going to answer it. Humidity is variable in the atmosphere latitudinally and vertically, so you can’t extrapolate one region for global.
You wrote:
“Your interesat in this is clearly driven by something other than curiosity and learning about the topic. The link to google scholar is available to you if you can tear yourself away from repeating your opinions on Schmidt.”
My interest is in reliable science. Being skeptical about people with a very clear agenda is part of having an interest in reliable science. Your reaction suggests you also have an agenda and that “clearly” gives me the higher level of “curiosity and learning about the topic”. I have not criticized you beyond expressing humor that you thought I was going to accept speculative computer simulation as science fact. There are other opinions based on very basic science claiming that the effect from CO2 has grown from 5% preindustial to about 8% now. I am less skeptical of those claims because the reasoning is very clearly stated. If you are not aware of those claims, then maybe you are the one needing to do more research. I fully understand all of the theoretical science involved in climate research, and that is why I am very skeptical that any certainty cam be claimed about a very complex and dynamic subject.
“There are other opinions”
I know, I supplied another – which you still haven’t mentioned, preferring to make it all about one author.
Do you have a link to these other opinions? What about them made you think they were more accurate?
Well it’s clear now that you have zero scientific interest in your query, and are all about the personalities, talking points and soundbytes. I supplied links to 2 papers on your query, and you then spent none of your 4 following replies exploring the topic. Nor did you bring up any other science on your query.
Because science is not your interest.
Tim seems more confident in his own opinions on the number, than the science-based ones.
The correct answer was given by Eben:
“No one knows , it cannot be measured”
I then responded in agreement:
“That is what I thought. The two gases have very different properties, so it would seem very difficult to estimate the effect of different mixtures, but it does seem that CO2 should have a stronger effect at the same concentration as water vapor.”
The fact is that Schmidt is making an educated guess based on speculative assumptions. He is not stating a science fact. For the record, I do not know the answer and that is why I posed the question. If someone wants to take the position that Schmidt and his followers BELIEVE the number is 20% that is okay with me. To say that is science fact is a mistake that I do not want to make.
Otherwise, carry on with your advocacy of peoples opinions that have no scientific certainty if it makes you feel good.
He did physics based modeling to arrive at an answer. Not the last word Im sure. A nonscience based opinion on this is not a useful alternative.
Yes, the relative GHG contributions to warming are known, with uncertainties. Here they are from the AR5:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
Does the USA have an official, accepted figure for the uncertainty envelope around the ordinary, usual, daily temperature?
How far apart do 2 temperatures need to be, before the difference can be called statistically significant, not just due to noise?
I have tried for several years to get a figure from Australia’s BOM, but they obfuscate.
Is there a reference to this topic for the UAH and RSS satellite-based data? Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington
” Is there a reference to this topic for the UAH and RSS satellite-based data? ”
Maybe I’m a bit dense today evening; could you please be a bit less cryptic?
J.-P. D.
J.-P.D.
Sure. If UAH or RSS report (say) a monthly temperature for a place, then another monthly temperature for the same place, how far apart are these temperatures once uncertainty is accounted for. What is so hard to understand about this? I was trained in my science to regard the un certainty of a number as almost as valuable as the number itself. Were you not? Geoff S
The smaller the area, the greater the uncertainty. I doubt you will find uncertainty estimates for UAH monthly temperature of North Dakota, for example. I think you will find uncertainty estimates for monthly, global anomalies. But that information takes a bit of time finding, as it is not a very interesting metric. The uncertainty in the long-term trends are more useful.
I believe UAH have uncertainty for monthly global temp anomalies buried in one of their papers. From memory it is +/- 0.1C.
I would imagine similar for monthly anomalies in other datasets. But I’m not sure how interesting that is compared to uncertainties in the long-term trends.
That’s what I remember seeing as well. This compares to published uncertainties of surface and reanalysis datasets of around +/- 0.05C.
Haha. So I guess global average temperature is static for a few months and the page jumps to disagrement about rotation. I will throw in my two cents, but I dont see that there is a definite answer.
If the sun rotates around an axis then so does the moon. I say this because each roatation also requires the axis to be dynamic in time. For the sun, the axis moves for obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. For the moon axis it is the sun axis movement plus the moon axis movement. I dont see why adding one more example of a moving axis for the moon system changes the definition used for the sun.
Take 2.
Haha. So I guess global average temperature is static for a few months and the page jumps to disagrement about rotation. I will throw in my two cents, but I dont see that there is a definite answer.
If the earth rotates around an axis then so does the moon. I say this because each roatation also requires the axis to be dynamic in time. For the earth, the axis moves for obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. For the moon axis it is the earth axis movement plus the moon axis movement. I dont see why adding one more example of a moving axis for the moon system changes the definition used for the earth.
Reply
ArronS, a good introductory course starts here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-561528
Pretty much a dead cert 2020 is going to be the second warmest year in the UAH record. Next month’s anomaly would have to be less than 0.13 to prevent that.
Pretty much a dead cert that all this “global warming” is being caused by COVID-19.
Lord, DREM is still going on about the Moon’s rotational axis not existing? And the climate isn’t warming and nobody is dying from Covid.
Oh, was it you who stole my T?
NASA disagrees with you. NASA states it is a misconception the moon doesn’t rotate and that it rotates on its axis.
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/#:~:text=The%20Moon%20does%20not%20rotate.&text=The%20time%20it%20takes%20for,towards%20Earth%20throughout%20the%20month.
Space.com also clearly states the moon rotates on its axis as well as explaining the moon used to rotate on its axis faster.https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Scientific American, per the Carnegie Institution of Washington, mentions the moon spins at the same rate it revolves. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/
Discover Magazine explicitly states the moon is not stuck with one side facing the Earth, but rotates. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon
Also, the merry-go-round analogy (and the ball on the string) don’t work. Merry-go-round horses maintain a fixed position with respect to the center. If you were standing at the center watching a particular horse, it wouldn’t appear to be orbiting at all. If the moon behaved like a merry-go-round it would be fixed over the same spot on Earth and there would be no moonrise or moonset.
You were doing really well until the last sentence of the last paragraph. The moonrise and moonset are caused by the rotation of the earth, not the orbit of the moon. Otherwise, in order for the same face to always point toward earth, the moon must rotate in space, but not with respect to the earth, and not about its axis because the axis is also moving in space. The merry-go-round analogy does work, except the analogy proves the horse also rotates with respect to space, and with respect to an observer on the merry-go-round, but not about its axis. Some of this may be semantics.
So I confused myself with edits. The horse does NOT rotate with respect to an observer on the ride, but it does with respect to an observer NOT on the ride. Still the horse does not rotate about its axis which is rotating along with the rest of the ride.
Motion of any kind is always relative. Saying something is moving at 100 mph has no meaning unless one specifies a reference relative to which it is moving at that speed.
Similarly, rotation is necessarily relative to some frame of reference. So, your description is valid: the horse does not rotate with respect to the rotating frame of the ride. It does rotate relative to an observer standing stationary on the ground away from the ride.
For dynamical treatments of translation and rotation, we generally choose an inertial frame of reference which is fixed relative to the distant stars. The reason is that Newton’s Laws hold only in an inertial frame of reference.
The Moon nominally does not rotate with respect to a frame of reference rotating in synchronization with its orbit because of tidal locking (though there is a bit of wobble in that angular trajectory).
The Moon does rotate relative to the distant stars. That is a trivially true since any fixed point on the Moon’s equator will see different stars over the course of time. Newton’s 2nd Law can be used to derive Euler’s equations, which tell us how that rotation will evolve in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_equations_(rigid_body_dynamics)
Bart is still letting reference frames confuse him. If you center your coordinate system on the moon itself, then relative to the distant stars the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis, because you have removed the necessary context to tell that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. It is “orbiting”, and not “rotating on its own axis”. You have to “zoom out” your reference frame by cantering your coordinate system on the Earth/moon barycenter. Then, relative to the distant stars you can see that the moon is “orbiting”, and not “rotating on its own axis”.
Bart,
Thank you for a sensible comment based on science that can be replicated. Geoff S
Sadly, it was wrong, as explained.
Bart believes: “The Moon does rotate relative to the distant stars.”
Moon APPEARS to rotate about its axis relative to the distand stars. But that appearance fools many. Moon is orbiting, NOT rotating about its axis. The “inertial” frame of reference fails to be an accurate measurement system for Moon axial rotation.
That’s why the simple analogy of a ball on a string is so useful. And that’s why idiots so hate simple analogies.
“as explained”
Sadly, not. All that is there is assertion.
ClintR says:
Moon APPEARS to rotate about its axis relative to the distand stars. But that appearance fools many. Moon is orbiting, NOT rotating about its axis
If you stand on the surface of the Moon, you will see all the stars in the universe sweep before your eyes.
Because, and only because, the Moon is rotating.
If it weren’t rotating, you’d see the same patch of stars all the time.
Obviously.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Bart is still letting reference frames confuse him. If you center your coordinate system on the moon itself, then relative to the distant stars the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis, because you have removed the necessary context to tell that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. It is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. You have to zoom out your reference frame by cantering your coordinate system on the Earth/moon barycenter.
Hey Einstein,
Again, you don’t have to do ANYTHING with your reference frame.
It’s a shame you never took a class in physics or you would have learned this.
It’s called relativity. Not the Einstein kind — just simple relativity.
You think there are preferred frames of reference. You’re completely wrong.
Roy, why are you putting this troll here? What are you getting out of it? It’s time to come clean.
David App.ell, why are you appealing to Dr Roy? He banned you.
A horse on a merry-go-round completes one orbit every time the center completes one full spin. Thus, if the moon were a merry-go-round, it would complete one orbit in 24 hours instead of 27.3 days. As a result, the moon (as viewed from Earth) would always appear to be fixed in the same point in the sky.
Aren’t moonrise and moonset caused by the difference in speed between the Earth’s rotation and the moon’s orbit? If the Earth didn’t spin but the moon still orbited, there would still be a moonrise.
Another illustration would be a playground roundabout. Standing on the roundabout while it spins is different than walking on the ground around the roundabout while it spins. The former is like a merry-go-round, the latter is like the moon.
If, like the moon, you try to walk on the ground around a roundabout, you have to turn slowly. Otherwise, you will keep walking in a straight line. If the roundabout had a strong enough gravitational pull to lock you into orbit and you didn’t turn, you would always be facing the same direction and would have to walk sideways and backwards.
Finally, if the moon doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the Earth, then it would follow that the Earth doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the sun. Both the Earth and the moon rotate on their own axis. The difference is the moon rotates and orbits at the same speed, while the Earth rotates substantially faster than it orbits.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation”, or simply “orbiting”, is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. So, the Earth is “orbiting” plus “rotating on its own axis”, the moon is only “orbiting”.
Not according to every link I posted, including NASA, plus every other source I found on the internet.
According to those sources, the moon is orbiting plus rotating on its axis and the reason the same side of the moon remains oriented toward the center of the orbit is because the moon spins once per orbit.
Grab something you can hold with one hand and pass it around your body. The same side of the object will not remain oriented toward your body unless you spend extra energy to turn it as you pass it around.
If I hold the object in front of me and spin in circles (like a merry-go-round), it will stay oriented toward me, but it will also always be in front of me. The moon doesn’t do that.
If I combine the two motions, passing it around my body while spinning myself, then again, the same side does not remain oriented toward me unless I also deliberately spin the object at the same rate I pass it around.
Yes, the vast majority of sources you can find will tell you the moon does rotate on its own axis. If you like authority figures, Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
And as these guys know full well, Newton explained that the Moon was spinning on its axis in the Principia. They want you to believe that Newton got it wrong.
Of course he didnt.
If Tesla said that, he was wrong. (Also in the vast minority.)
Tesla’s mistake, like DREMT’s, is that he’s looking at balls attached to rods.
There is no rod attaching the Moon to the Earth.
It’s amazing how this simple fact is completely ignored and overlooked.
Tesla was just trying to get a simple point across. He does not literally mean there is a rod attached to the moon from the Earth.
Thanks for the link’s to Tesla’s article. It was nice to have some actual science to support your idea.
One thing that jumps out at me is that Tesla’s view on axial rotation appears to be largely influenced by his belief as to how the moon formed. He indicates if the moon was thrown off from the Earth it couldn’t possibly spin on its own axis. He also concludes that if a planetary body keeps its same face toward the mass it was separated from, this is proof that it was thrown off. It is no longer a popular theory that the moon was spun off the Earth, which undermines Tesla’s rationale for why the moon must not be rotating.
Tesla also didn’t have the benefit of the research on Mercury and its tidal locking at a 3:2 ratio rather than a 1:1 ratio. Tesla called the idea that an object’s rotation would be perfectly controlled by tides miraculous. He indicated the number of satellites that do just that would be too many miracles to be probable and that they therefore must not be spinning at all. Mercury being locked at a 3:2 ratio would likely cause him to question whether tidal locking is actually miraculous. It is possible Mercury is continuing slow and it is just a coincidence that we observed it at a 3:2 ratio. But in the words of Tesla, that would be miraculous.
“It was nice to have some actual science to support your idea”
It’s not my idea.
Tesla never made a sound logical argument. After his first article many astronomers wrote into the periodical to point out his errors. He tried to address these criticisms in the later articles, but ultimately he failed.
“Finally, if the moon doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the Earth, then it would follow that the Earth doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the sun.”
Wrong.
Orbital motion has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. The two motions are seperate and distinct.
I never said they aren’t. However, I do withdraw that particular argument. It refutes the idea that the moon can’t rotate on its axis while orbiting the Earth but in retrospect, nobody ever said the moon can’t rotate, merely that it doesn’t.
That clears it up.
Thanks!
Just repetitive declarative statements, that have no logical or factual basis.
If I can ‘win’ an argument that way, cool. I declare that DREMT is a steaming pile of dog shit.
Now if I repeat a few more times, I win the argument! The debate is then over.
Nate, your problem is that you are unable to recognize “logic or factual basis”. You reject reality as you make up nonsense. That makes you an idiot.
Applying Svante’s translation rule, You are saving Im a genius. Thanks!
And btw “Orbital motion has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. The two motions are seperate and distinct.”
This is true, though “Orbital motion has nothing to do with the orbiting object’s rotation” is more comprehensive.
Curious claims: “Thus, if the moon were a merry-go-round, it would complete one orbit in 24 hours instead of 27.3 days.”
Curious, you have to be responsible for your comments, unless you are a troll.
So, how is Moon a MGR? How does it compete an orbit in 24 hours?
The moon doesn’t complete an orbit in 24 hours, ergo, the moon is not a horse on a merry-go-round. DREMT was the one who said the moon is like an MGR.
MGR horses complete exactly 1 “orbit” for every 1 complete rotation of the central axis. In actuality, they aren’t orbiting at all, they are simply spinning on the merry-go-round the same way you and I are spinning on the Earth.
The moon is more analogous to a parent watching a kid on the merry-go-round. If the parent walks around the MGR, the MGR doesn’t turn the parent. Rather, the parent has to turn himself in order to stay facing the merry-go-round, just like the moon does.
Curious, I don’t know what to say. It appears you may be one of the most creatively stupid idiots we have on the list. I will defer to DREMT and Gordon for a final decision.
But your entry is incredible:
“The moon is more analogous to a parent watching a kid on the merry-go-round. If the parent walks around the MGR, the MGR doesn’t turn the parent. Rather, the parent has to turn himself in order to stay facing the merry-go-round, just like the moon does.”
Again ClintR substitutes insults for an argument.
Always a lot easier.
Thats his specialty…
David, please stop trolling.
Thanks Clint. It’s always nice to be good at something, double so to be good at something as beneficial as creativity.
I’ve subsequently discovered the 2-coin experiment, in which you place a quarter on a table, a penny with Lincoln’s head facing the quarter, and then move the penny in a circle with your finger, keeping the head facing the quarter. This necessarily requires you to rotate your hand (and eventually pick your finger up and replace it, since you can’t rotate your hand 360 degrees), and neatly demonstrates why a 2-body system like the sun and the moon differs from a 1 body system like a MGR.
Yes, there are many ways you can fool yourself.
Wondering if someone can tell me when the 5-year average was last up at +0.42.
Thanks.
Tom
It didn’t ever:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VWxcZvDTDr54UgKn8fltiPwBX59ESVEr/view
J.-P. D.
Indeed! The trend from 1979 to 1998 when extrapolated takes us pretty much exactly to where we are now. It’s as though the pause never happened.
These people need to understand that the warming is punctuated due to factors other than the greenhouse effect, and when these other effects change phase, there is a lot of catching up as the trend returns.
They pretend that the models are ‘wrong’ because they don’t capture these excursions from the trend, when in fact the long-term greenhouse trend is the only claim these models attempt to make.
But of course their agenda demands that they will continue to misrepresent these excursions in order to cast doubt on the models, claiming at every dip that “the warming is over”. You would think it would finally sink in that this claim has never been right.
On the flip-side of the coin, the Guy McPherson catastrophists pretend that the rate of warming of the last 5 years will never again slow, and will only accelerate from here.
Do you have a link to the Guy McPherson catastrophists saying that?
Guy McPherson has been saying things similar to that for years, though I can’t say whether he made that exact claim. He has his own YouTube channel: Nature Bats Last. Enjoy!
Never heard of him. Alarmist, is he? I’ll see if Tom comes up with a link for what he contended.
What is the point of a “centered mean?” And how is it calculated exactly?
I’ve never understood this. Thanks.
What can you see in the stratosphere? Frost.
https://i.ibb.co/mGvxnJC/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/caroline-lucas-apologises-for-comparing-climate-change-denial-to-holocaust-denial-1.483207
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-denial-worse-than-holocaust-denial
I could post countless more articles, Nate.
The denier label is a cheap shot, and I don’t put up with that bull****. It’s why I quit arguing about climate change a long time ago. And people who use that label can go **** themselves.
Yet you have no problem using the “Alarmist” tag.
You can’t expect to have it both ways.
And please don’t come back with anything akin to “they did it first”.
I follow Neil Dr Grasse Tyson’s definition.
“A sceptic questions the claims and then embraces the evidence. A denier questions the claims and then rejects the evidence.”
Do you embrace the evidence for AGW and climate change or reject it?
Entropic man, your definitions from your cult don’t count.
And your cult leader’s name is “Neil deGrasse Tyson”, not your perverted version.
You haven’t been attending your cult classes enough.
Shame on you.
ClintR uses insults to hide his lack of knowledge.
He does this constantly.
Actually Trump does much the same thing.
David, please stop trolling.
Following the little red bouncing running centered 13 month average line, UAH is now averaging +.185*C per decade since 1980.
-.22*C in 1980, +.52*C in 2020
+.74*C in 4 decades for the Global Lower Atmosphere (Version 6.0).
+.185*C per decade for the centered running 13 month average.
You can’t find trends by subtracting the endpoints and dividing. That is where people come up with the nonsense statement “no warming since 1998”. The trend is +0.134 per decade from June1979 to May 2020.
Tom,
even Dr Spencer says the linear warming trend is +.14*C in his first sentence below the UAH graph (not +.134 as you state)
The centered running 13 month average still shows +.185*C per decade for the Global Lower Atmosphere.
also Tom, the UAH graph goes to Nov 2020, not May 2020.
The trend of monthly data is +0.138 per decade (hence the +0.14).
The trend of the 13-month averages is 0.134.
Surely you understand that the CENTERED 13-month data finishes in MAY 2020.
Running the numbers quickly through Excel, I get trends of:
0.137 C/decade for the raw data
0.134 C/decade for the 13-month average
Minor statistical point — taking a trend of an average can be problematic. In this case with the 13 month average, the very earliest 6 months and very latest 6 months get weighted less heavily than the months in between. Since the first few months are extra cold (ie below the trend line) and the last few months extra warm (ie above the trend line), this leads to an artificial decrease in the trend (0.137 to 0.134).
The correct way is to use the individual months, not the averages.
Deriving a trend from 12 (or 13) month averages reduces autocorrelation.
It reduces bandwidth, not autocorrelation.
Averaging is the basis for common autocorrelation models. It also reduces bandwidth.
Averaging, in fact, extends correlation time.
Although, I wouldn’t call it ‘bandwidth’, rather ‘amplitude’.
Austocorrelation weakens the further you get from the initial variable. Time step 6 is not as strongly correlated with time step 1 as time step 2, so averaging bunches of them reduces the autocorrelation overall. Now you are dealing with bunches of averages with weakened autocorrelation within. It doesn’t solve the problem entirely, just reduces it. You also now have less information. It’s a trade-off. Some autocorrelation models employ (rolling) averages, such as the ARMA (1,1) model in the applet below.
This neat applet performs an ARMA (1,1) regression on monthly global temperature data to account for autocorrelation.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
You can also change the moving average for a different smooth. It’s defaulted to 12 months.
An arbitrary autocorrelation model. Great.
Having checked the paper that underpins the use of this a/c model, what makes you say it is arbitrary?
Global temperature data exhibit several non-stationary and cyclo-stationary processes. Describing them by a 1-box model is… just silly.
The authors test the nature of the data. Global temp data doesn’t exhibit cyclostationary behaviour on the UAH time scale. It certainly does over hundreds of thousands of years, and possibly over a century (but that is by no means sure).
Regardless, the autoregression model is not going to produce wildly wrong results. The data from 1979 onwards clearly have a trend which passes any kind of reasonable statistical test, and 1st order linear trends are useful for getting an idea of the amount of change.
What autoregression model do you think would best fit the data? I would guess that you are going to eschew all of them, and am very confident you won’t have formally tested the nature of the data.
The authors of the paper behind the applet certainly have done that testing.
Tim,
The application of a running average somewhat removes the noise from inter annual climate variability from el nino and la Nina. I would argue the opposite, an instantaneous trend that excludes the drop from this La Nina, but includes the previous el nino warming does not represent the climate trend any more than a trend including the maximum trough in temperature that we will most likely see in a few months. By definition climate is long term average- something like 30 year average.
So technically the satellite data sets are pushing the definition of climate because they are so short. This is important because other proxy like Glacier isotopes to reconstruct climatic temperatures are not sensitive to short term changes in global temperature. Even in academia they often stitch together from ice derived temperatures to thermometer or satellite temperature. Notice they never talk about the Ice derived temp derived from snow being deposited today, and when you look it up specifically you realize the isotope record does not match the 1 degree C of warming recorded (glacial isotopes require significant sea level change to fractionate O isotopes). So we have no idea how many times similar 1 degree C jumps have occurred in the past. There is no way to statistically say if this climate change is faster or slower than natural change.
Yep.
Glacier isotopes are sensitive to local changes, but you can get ice cores that have annual resolution back for a few thousand years. Eg:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt8w75f0wz/qt8w75f0wz.pdf (31K years annual resolution)
The difficulty is getting global coverage at high resolution. I haven’t checked the literature since this core was dug up, to see if it had been dates against other cores from Greenland and South America etc.
Source does not confirm assertion. In fact, we cannot know, because there is no control experiment.
Of course there is no control. That is purely argumentative, Bart. The best they have is the NGRIP cores from the middle of Greenland, where there is little lateral subsurface flow.
The layers are easy enough to see with the naked eye. I see now they have dated the core by comparing it with nearby cores and those further afield. In this paper they compared with Greenland cores and others in Antarctica, dating according to methane levels, volcanic dust (large-scale eruptions, global coverage), and oxygen isotopes. Sharp excursions are easiest to match, such the Dansgaard–Oeschger events.
Whether or not this core has been added to the multiproxy global temp (and CO2) record I don’t know. Probably, but I haven’t read on ice cores for a while.
What I monitor for possible global cooling to take place. Now this could be wrong in total or it could be lag times have not been appreciated. In other words the lag times are longer.
I know many of you will say this theory is BS, nothing is happening not even in the slightest and you called for this over and over again. That is fair, and so far I am wrong and more wrong with each passing month.
Still I want to put it out there despite the data which lends no support thus far. I am a realist.
CLIMATE THOUGHTS – a brief concise report of how/why
I have not forgot co2 but one thing to remember is as it increases it’s climatic effects decrease due to saturation levels, where an x amount increase in co2 does not result in much less out going radiation from earth escaping into space. In addition co2 always has followed temperature changes in the past, not led.
The climate trend to cooling would be known way in advance, unlike a Carrington event which would be more out of the blue.
The cooling thought is based on lower then average solar activity, an increase in charged particles(cosmic rays) tied to solar activity and a weakening geo magnetic field (the weakening magnetic field compounds charge particles /cosmic ray effects), which in turn translates to more global cloud coverage (increases earth’s albedo —reflectivity ) , an increase in major volcanic activity(increases earth’s albedo once again).
ALBEDO – changes in albedo hard to accomplish/take place, but have nevertheless the number one climatic impact by far.
In addition ENSO being more in a La Nina mode.
Finally as a result of low solar activity a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern(due to less UV light) would likely increase global snow coverage which would also contribute to an increase on earth’s albedo and hence global cooling.
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES -neutral for the most part.
We will see ,so far no sign of global cooling, but those lag times are involved. I have confidence in this theory ,time will tell.
CO2 both causes warming and responds to warming. It can both lead and lag the temperature depending on whether it was the initial catalyzing agent or some other agent catalyzed the change. There are many periods where CO2 catalyzed the change and thus leads temperature. The PETM is considered to be among the best analogs to the contemporary warming period. But even for the glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period the lag relationship you often hear about is not as cut-n-dry as the blogosphere will have you believe. For example, Shakun 2012 found that there was likely see-sawing of temperatures going on between the NH and SH with CO2 leading in the NH and lagging in the SH.
CO2 does not “cause warming”. CO2 absorbs infrared from Earth’s surface, which was warmed by Sun. It is Sun that “causes warming”.
Turn off Sun, and very soon you will see how stupid the “CO2 causes warming” nonsense is.
It causes increased retention of heat, which causes the earth’s temperature to rise, which reasonable people would refer to as “warming”.
Well Tom, it is confusing. CO2 absorbs energy, but it is really low level. It does help to stabilize the atmosphere, through molecular collisions. But the energy is not able to raise surface temperatures. This goes back to the nonsense spread by idiots that claim two ice cubes can make something warmer than one ice cube.
Reasonable people would know more ice cannot warm more than less ice.
Given that you are already referring to ‘idiots’, it is clear you are someone who cannot be reasoned with and are not worth having a discussion with.
If the word “idiots” offends you Tom, what word would you prefer for those that reject reality?
Splendid logic Tom, the rest of us spent a lot more time before arriving at the same conclusion.
Passes the time if you’re seriously bored of course.
Svante, got a link to how you idiots claim ice cubes can add?
Let’s see if you can support your own cult nonsense.
ClintR
I don’t recall referring to being offended. Please read my comment again, this time not assuming anything I did not write.
Okay Tom, if you want to move away from your comment, I accept that.
That puts us back to this:
“Well Tom, it is confusing. CO2 absorbs energy, but it is really low level. It does help to stabilize the atmosphere, through molecular collisions. But the energy is not able to raise surface temperatures. This goes back to the nonsense spread by [incompetents] that claim two ice cubes can make something warmer than one ice cube.
Reasonable people would know more ice cannot warm more than less ice.
Notice I replied “idiots” with “incompetents”. That’s so snowflakes will be less offended.
‘.
If you insist on assigning words to me that I did not say, another reason for not engaging with you. You get the last word. Good luck in your search for a friend.
“Tom” was “Midas”?
That’s a trick used by Snape/Doris/Ramona/….
It’s anything to pervert reality.
ClintR relies on personal insults to cover up his lack of physics knowledge.
Like about torques.
David, please stop trolling.
“CO2 both causes warming and responds to warming.”
You’re talking positive feedback then. What stabilizes it?
gain <1
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01384430/file/Dufresne.SaintLu-bams-withsuppl-draft2col-2015.pdf
Gain is not < 1 unless there is a dominant stabilizing feedback. What is the stabilizing feedback?
There are multiple.
CO2 warming is logarithic, for example. Which is why sensitivity is computed by doubling.
Albedo – ice can only recede so far until there is none. Albedo feedback stops being positive at that time.
A warmer world is more humid = more, thicker low-lying clouds = more reflecting solar radiation.
Planck feedback.
Carbon cycle negative feedback: CO2 has been sequestered in the oceans at steadily increasing rates over the last 50 years, planetary biota has greened a little, taking up CO2 also, providing a negative feedback resulting in about half the increase that would have been provided purely by anthro emissions without the biosphere uptaking any excess.
More theoretical: negative lapse rate feedback. As the effective height of the emissive layer increaes due to GHG warming, the tropospheric temperature gradient reduces.
The strongest negative feedback on temperature is εσT^4, isn’t it?
stabilization depends on several planetary and atmospheric factors in quite a nonlinear way. see the ‘kombayashi-ingersoll limit’
And the lower Simpson-Nakajima limit. For those interested here is an introductory overview of what is being discussed.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2012.0004
You know that a couple of us have saved many posts of yours over the last decade, Salvatore, all predicting imminent cooling.
As each has failed to materialize, you never change your mind. Each repeated experiment seems to have no impact.
It is clear that you want cooling, and all the rationales you give serve that hope.
Barry I know I have been wrong. I am not going to refute the data.
I am a realist. This is why I have been quiet.
Salvatore, a lot of people believe that your prediction was right… it’s just that your timing was wrong.
“Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.
I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Salvatore, very refreshing honesty.
As skeptikal says, you might have to wait as everything comes true in the end.
Mark my words, global cooling will definitely occur when we finally arrive at the terminal state of the universe.
Yes I want cooling but you can see in the case of the virus /election fraud I am of my own mind.
I want to be correct doesn’t everyone. Thus far I am wrong.
You want cooling and you will get cooling… it will start early next year and it will be slow cooling but by the end of 2022 it will be undeniable.
Why, my friend?
Forgot to quote you:
“Yes, I want cooling”
Por que?
Why? Because I want to be correct.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
I have lots of those but don’t feel inclined to beat Salvatore with them when he is owning them already.
I would like you to be correct, too, but that doesn’t answer the question.
If you only wanted to be correct, you could have predicted warming all this time, and you are more likely to be correct if you start predicting warming from this time forward. Past experience should be teaching you that.
So I ask again, why do you want there to be cooling?
Global warming is an inconvenient truth.
Let me answer it this way. My studies led me to believe this would be the correct outcome of the climate.
Well, I did say I wasn’t going to beat you with your past predictions based on your studies.
We’re between Thanksgiving and Christmas and just before Hanukkah. So have a nice day.
What makes me less confident in addition to the data so far is so many sites that don’t believe in global warming, also have been 100% wrong in the down playing of the virus and on the election fraud.
It is scary company to be in agreement with on any subject given how clueless they are in other areas. I must admit.
+1
Your name is associated with a link which doesn’t work.
Salvatore
” … also have been 100% wrong in the down playing of the virus and on the election fraud. ”
Thank you very much for this comment.
And please feel free add to these various faces of flat-earthist antiscience a few other ones, namely for example the denial of Einstein’s work and… that of the Moon rotating about its axis.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
David, please stop trolling.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation”, or simply “orbiting”, is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. ”
That is certainly one way to define “orbitting”. And it works perfectly well for a perfectly circular orbit. So kudos. That is an interesting starting point.
I’m curious though, how you would extend this for elliptical orbits.
What is “orbital motion without axial rotation in real (elliptical) orbits”?
a) is it still “the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit” — ie toward the barycenter?
b) or one side oriented toward the center of the ellipse?
c) or maybe one point always pointing ahead along the orbit?
It turns out ALL of these are identical for a circular orbit, but all are different for elliptical orbits. So only one could be correct (or they could possibly all be wrong!) Or maybe you have some OTHER definition (d) for elliptical orbits?
Folkerts, it’s fun to have you back perverting physics again.
In an elliptical orbit, the orbiting body faces the “center” of the orbit. If you understood orbital motion, you would understand that that “center” means the foci of the ellipse.
That’s why we see Moon’s libration, which confuses Bindidon. (Idiots are so much fun.)
Awaiting your next effort to pervert physics….
“In an elliptical orbit, the orbiting body faces the “center” of the orbit. If you understood orbital motion, you would understand that that “center” means the foci of the ellipse.”
First it can only face one focus, not both of the two foci. So presumably you mean is would face one focus always.
But the central planet is at the focus. So you are saying that one side of the moon always faces the earth even with an elliptical orbit.
But that would mean no libration. And there we have it. You have just contradicted your own definition! Libration is causes when different parts of the moon face the earth at different parts of the orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
That’s another great effort to pervert physics, Folkerts. We expect no less from you.
And you combined your perversion of physics with perverting my words. I never said libration did not exist. Libration is caused by the lunar orbit. That’s another thing you and Bindidon can’t accept.
Awaiting your next attempt to pervert physics….
Tim Folkerts
Newton pretty good explained this in his Principia Mathematica (Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV), written in Latin – at that time, Latin still was for scientists the international communication language:
” 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. ”
or, in 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. ”
*
The upper focus is always that where we find the orbited body; the other one is always empty.
*
Btw, you may enjoy the two smart, knowledged reaction to a couple of my comments referring to the same original text written by Newton:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-559952
*
Newton seems, according to the genius, to have been very confused as he wrote that wonderful piece of science… perfectly confirming what Domenico Cassini had discovered, and was confirmed in 1748 by Tobias Mayer!
J.-P. D.
A question on this debate… Hypothetically, if the earth suddenly ceased to exist and its gravitational pull was instantly lost, the moon would carry on in a relatively straight line. As it moved off in a straight line, would it rotate on its axis and why?
It would depend where Moon was in its orbit. If it were heading toward Sun, it would continue, due to Sun’s gravity. If Moon were heading to space, it would likely escape Sun’s gravity.
But, in either case, it would not be rotating about its axis, since it is not rotating about its axis now.
The moon’s rotation has angular momentum, so yes, it would rotate if the Earth disappeared.
Like a ball on a string if you let go the string while whirling it about. You can see it here, before the drag on the ‘string’ interferes with the rotation too much.
https://youtu.be/osLNbeFhn04?t=964
Angular momentum is calculated:
https://www.slader.com/discussion/question/a-what-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-in-its-orbit-around-earth-b-how-does-this-angular-momentum-compare-with-the-angular-momentum-of-t-e2507991/
barry, if Moon were actually rotating about its axis, then it would have angular momentum. But, it is NOT rotating about its axis, as can be easily observed.
You are confused by the nonsense spewed from institutions. You don’t understand the basic physics, and you refuse to learn. You reject reality, in favor of your cult religion.
That makes you an idiot.
ClintR, how do you know the Moon doesn’t have spin angular momentum?
Would it be a reasonable question to ask, does the moon display a centripetal force around its axis?
David, see my comment right above yours.
Coolist
All celestial bodies orbit around another one, and all celestial bodies have spin.
The two properties exist in common for these bodies since their very beginning within young stars’ accretion disks.
The Moon can’t get rid of its angular momentum just because Earth stops existing.
What is rather unknown is whether or not its rotation speed (synchronous to its orbit) keeps as it is. It might change because the torque exerted by Earth then suddenly would disappear.
J.-P. D.
JD says: “…and all celestial bodies have spin”.
JD, that’s wrong. Moon does NOT “have spin”. Many other moons in our solar system also do not have spin.
JD says: “It might change because the torque exerted by Earth then suddenly would disappear.”
Wrong again, JD. Earth’s gravity does not produce a net torque on Moon.
Coolist
Maybe you are interested in scientific material (of course: automatically rejected and denigrated by those who call us ‘idiots’).
Origin of the Moon: Dynamical considerations
Gordon MacDonald, 1966
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966ems..conf..165M
There are many more papers concerning spin-orbit coupling in celestial bodies, but this one is very interesting.
J.-P. D.
Oh the blog’s bloody scanner!
https://tinyurl.com/yclbtxcb
It’s fun to see “papers” like that. The author, it turns out, is a geophysicist. That usually means he knows little about physics. And he demonstrates that in this paper. Just in the first two paragraphs, he compares Moon’s mathematical construct of “orbital angular momentum” with Earth’s rotational angular momentum. A meaningless comparison. He goes on to imply Earth is transferring angular momentum to Moon!
Idiot.
Salvatore,
I am skeptical to write off the sun’s activity myself. I have always agreed CO2 is contributing to global warming, but I also could not eliminate the combination of solar irradiation (particularly the UV spectrum) and magnetic field strength (via clouds) was also contributing to the warming during the sustained solar max until the turn of the century. There could still be a lag between solar activity and global warming, but it would be an unlikely bet after 20 years of decoupling between the factors. Of course an interesting analogy is the daily cycle where on average peak solar activity is mid day and peak temperature occurs on average in the late afternoon- a lag. Not a perfect analogy, but there is “memory” in ocean circulation patterns that could still be masking the impact of reduced solar activity. But like I said, I wouldn’t bet on it at this point. Regardless, glad to have you post.
Thanks Aron. I get 15 years 2005-2020, regardless time is ticking by with still no signs of cooling.
Trump is horrific . I am so glad he lost.
Do you have a 401K?
The US stock market under Trump only has done marginally better than it did during Obama’s second term. Nothing extra to get excited about. Given the collapse in the economy during Trump’s term, many more people are unemployed than when Trump came in to office.
The collapse in the economy was due to leftists. First, the virus came from leftist China. Then leftist governors shut down the economy and caused the financial collapse. However, it has rebounded nicely. However, if Biden is elected, his idiotic leftist policies will collapse the economy like the China virus.
Equities which I own have been and will do quite well as long as vaccines work and it has nothing to do with Trump.
About AGW theory…..my difficulties.
1. No other causes of warming have been seriously considered.
2. There isn’t enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause
3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy.
As an Australian I’ll report that this November has been unusually hot ( mostly trapped inland in desert regions).
I’ll add that the UV index has also been at record levels ( skin cancer is also increasing again); that UV has about 48 times the energy of IR and the hole in the stratospheric Ozone layer has not been as large as this last two months this century. ( The polar vortexes have been particularly stable and Ozone depleting chemicals have reached last century levels again….yes yes the Halons aren’t greenhouse gases but keep lol ozone just as well as the CFCs).
Maybe just maybe more energy entering the system explains a systems increased energy balance as well or better than less energy leaving the system ? Surely it might be at least considered ?
1. No other causes of warming have been seriously considered.
Other causes of global warming have been studied at length for decades. The IPCC reports collate and summarize thousands of studies on solar influence, cloud cover changes, cosmic rays etc etc etc.
2. There isn’t enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause
No one said CO2 could be the only cause at all times, but it is said to be the dominant cause since the 1950s.
3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy.
Re-emitted radiation does not know which direction to go. It has no way of selecting whether to shoot into an area of higher or lower energy. It is essentially a random process.
You might be confusing the discrete movement of radiant energy with the net flow of heat per classical thermodynamics.
Murray says:
2. There isnt enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause
Murray, are you aware there are over a half-million bands in CO2’s spectrum in the range of Earth’s outgoing IR spectrum?
Murray says:
3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy.
Murray, Murray, Murray….
ever hear of conservation of energy?
Energy doesn’t “move” to some place with less energy. Energy is conserved. It stays the same.
Did you take basic physics, Murray?
David, please stop trolling.
Murray, your points 2) and 3) are correct.
Murray
” 2. There isnt enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause ”
As barry wrote: no one, alarmists excepted, pretends that it is.
What is said is very different: while the main GH warming cause is until now H2O and will keep so for a long while, CO2 is a steadily increasing addendum, as it is resident up to 50 km altitude, as opposed to H2O which precipitates the latest when reaching the tropopause.
*
” 3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy. ”
No. ALL energy (radiated from Earth’s surface) absorbed (and soon reemitted, but in all directions) by CO2 is energy that doesn’t reach outer space directly and therefore disturbs the energy balance at TOA, what results in warming.
Currently tiny amounts, of course. But over the next century certainly not.
J.-P. D.
“…and therefore disturbs the energy balance at TOA, what results in warming.”
No JD, that’s wrong. It’s the same mistake bdgwx makes. Just because CO2 absorbs energy, that does not “disturb the energy balance at TOA”. Like bdgwx, you don’t understand the energy balance, or energy flows.
Regarding Salvatore being wrong about a predictions. Big deal! The woke left is wrong all the time and they never loose credibility. Here we have a prediction that La Nina cooling will not happen this year. Anyone want to support this prediction?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/world/climate-change-effects-wmo-2020-intl/index.html
You’ve completely misstated the article. It doesn’t say that la Nina won’t happen.
“2020 has been unusually hot despite the cooling effect of La Nina.”
I’m going to assume you are a conservative, and point out that your BS reading of the is typical.
I will not only support the prediction that 2020 will be one of the top 3 hottest years in the instrumental record despite the cooling effects of la Nina, I’ll go one better.
I’ll bet YOU US$100 that 2020 will be the second hottest year of the UAH global temp record.
I’m good for it, and I’ll pay up without fuss once the results are in early. You playing?
How typical. Cocksure deniers can’t even be bothered to read the article they’re cocksure sure is wrong.
AaronS, you should apologize.
David, please stop trolling.
Yes David, I have a PhD in Physics. Of course energy is conserved. It’s movement to areas of less energy is known as heat.
Of course energy can move. But now without some other energy moving somewhere else or transforming into another form(s).
Energy is conserved, Murray.
Aha! I knew you were conflating heat flow with radiant energy. Imagine if you stood behind a bright light shining at a much dimmer light. If energy spontaneously knows not to radiate towards a warmer object then no light from the dim light would head towards the bright one.
Heat flows from hot to cold. Radiant energy beams in all directions.
Classic thermodynamics is concerned with the NET transfer of energy, otherwise known as heat.
barry, it is YOU that conflates heat flow with radiant energy. Just because energy from the dimmer light arrives, does not result in a temperature increase. You’re trying the same old ruse, trying to claim 2 ice cubes will make something hotter than one ice cube.
That’s NOT how it works.
David says “Murray, are you aware there are over a half-million bands in CO2s spectrum in the range of Earths outgoing IR spectrum?”
No David I’m not aware of that.
Perhaps every single one of the hundreds of IR spectrometers I’ve operated was faulty and each one only showed two very distinct ( and incredibly narrow) bands of CO2 molecular excitement in the IR range ? Glad you want to reinvent molecular activity, however I’m not sure you can.
By the way reinventing thermodynamics by suggesting energy never moves toward molecules of less energy would be in my opinion more impressive. The idea energy moves toward areas of higher energy the best novel idea yet !
Now if you want to explain to me why you think my problems with the theory are invalid, please continue. If you want to reinvent basic concepts just to argue for no reason, please go away.
Or perhaps your spectrometers weren’t very sensitive.
Are you familiar with the HITRAN database?
You should learn about it — it’s a spectroscopists dream.
For fun I once downloaded all the CO2 energy transitions between 666/cm and 668/cm.
There are 1,406.
David
I’m sure CO2 will have an increasing influence concerning Earth’s energy balance at TOA during this century.
*
It’s nice to tell us about how many lines the HITRAN DB has for CO2.
But to be honest, wouldn’t it be better to show the lines compared with those provided for H2O?
And… not the number of lines is here what counts, but their intensity is.
Let us take this tool for comparison purposes:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
We select
– H2O and CO2
– scale by their respective atmospheric abundance
– from 5 up to 20 micron (to encompass Earth’s major IR response to Sun’s irradiance)
– at the altitudes of 0 resp. 15 km.
1. 0 km
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I32co5V0Zjp4I-kU-cuW3ayTE-iIFWkW/view
2. 15 km
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I53h9NLc-5mFZroYg2BrOp3AagWyRQiJ/view
As you can see, H2=’s inluence disappears at an altitude of 15 km; but… CO2’s absorp-tion/emission intensity is about 1 % of that shown at 0 km by water vapor.
J.-P. D.
Thanks Barry.
I know what the IPCC does. I was one of the signatories that suggested it’s existence.
However the “cooling effect of ozone in the lower atmosphere” they have reported in they’re most recent full report, seems at least strange ?
Radiated energy’s direction will obviously be omnidirectional ? Because we are speaking about electromagnetic radiation in this instance the longer the wavelength the less directional it will be ? I might be confusing radiant energy with classic thermodynamics for sure. Thermodynamics will describe the flow of heat perfectly. Has it been disproven recently ?
Thanks for a sensible reply. They’re rare.
Nice to meet you. I’m curious about your history.
I’m not qualified to speak about thermodynamics except in very general terms. Of course, all EMR at whatever frequency is omnidirectional.
From AR5 the only breakdown between SW/LW and stratosphere/troposphere is provided by ACCMPI.
LW-stratosphere = -0.13 W/m^2
SW-stratosphere = +0.11 W/m^2
LW-troposphere = +0.33 W/m^2
SW-troposphere = +0.08 W/m^2
Using multiple studies the breakdown is…
stratosphere = -0.05 W/m^2
troposphere = +0.40 W/m^2
net = +0.35 W/m^2
Can you point me to where “cooling effect of ozone in the lower atmosphere” is discussed? It seems like there is a warming effect from low altitude ozone.
bdgwx, you realize all those figures are nonsense, don’t you?
The atmosphere does NOT add energy to Earth system.
Thanks David,
I guess no one’s IR is as good as the ones you’ve never touched
This is NASAs measuring our planet’s IR from space :-
https://images.app.goo.gl/oBP9PWkLEFVg4vMC6
How many bands were stopped ?
David it is clear that H2O causes most infra red spectrum energy capture. It’s also clear that temperature drives H2O atmospheric content ?
Are you suggesting temperature doesn’t drive CO2 atmospheric concentrations ?
Literature says CO2 drives temps, and temps drives CO2, but at different time scales.
Yes barry, it is possible for CO2 to “drive temps” lower, since hit radiates energy to space.
And keep in mind a major difference between H2O and CO2. That is H2O is a condensing gas while CO2 is non-condensing. That has huge implications in their behavior as their concentrations related to temperature.
Correct bdgwx. Water is an even better coolant than CO2. Evaporation from the surface cools the surface. Atmospheric condensation releases thermal energy to be radiated to space.
It’s very similar to a “swamp cooler”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler
Barry , Engineering electrical ( communications) and chemical. Worked for a CFC manufacturing plant. Nominated into Australian chemical industry council at the right time for a junket ( Montreal accord).
Later my interest in pipeline grids led to interest in turbulence in fluids ( otherwise they are the same as electrical grids). Later still high velocity motion through fluids. Turbulence and friction etc.
I’ve kept an eye on what happened after Montreal and it frankly amazes me that when everyone can agree that the energy in ultraviolet will certainly sterilise the Earth’s surface, so required and received action, that the same energy might not cause some heat. But the IPCC says it doesn’t which along with loving this website because almost everywhere else hides global average temperature ( I’m old fashioned and like empirical measurements ) makes me as someone who definately lied about observed results for financial gain at times ;- highly suspicious of modelling that is clearly and increasingly divergent in one direction to observation. I’m a simple sceptic. I believe UHA are similarly simple sceptics….I certainly don’t deny CO2 and temperature have a relationship.
“interest in turbulence in fluids”
Do you know Nick Stokes, by any chance? Fluid dynamics researcher at CSIRO (retired, I think). Climate Science has been a big hobby for him in the last 15/20 years or so.
“I certainly don’t deny CO2 and temperature have a relationship”
Something like this, perhaps, as an example:
https://i.postimg.cc/hGPj4L8t/Monthly-CO2-at-MLO-2.jpg?
Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).
My comment on the above:
Food for thought. I wonder toward the end of the Medieval Warm Period which know one knew would end at the time if CO2 were on the increase toward the end of this period if the same conclusions about the climate that are now being made, would have been made then?
If so they would have been dead wrong because a Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warm Period, which started very shortly after this warming period ended.
Just saying.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552711
Today would be a good day for Tonto the clown, a.k.a. ClintR, to release his debunking of tidal locking.
All he has done so far is divert and deflect.
Note that the Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and 431 does not say anything about his hammers and feathers model. It does say however:
1.- The lunar dynamical model for DE430 includes interaction between the rotation of the fluid core and the mantle.
2.- The effect of this interaction is clearly seen in Lunar Laser Ranging data and characterizes a damping in the differential rotation between the core and mantle.
3.- The orientation of the lunar exterior (mantle and crust, hereafter referred to by mantle) is parameterized by Euler angles that relate the Moon-centered, rotating lunar mantle to the inertial frame.
4.- The Moon’s second-degree gravity field is time varying due to distortion by tides and spin.
5.- The mantle coordinate system is defined by the principal axes of the unaltered mantle in which the moment of inertia matrix of the is diagonal.
6.- The directions of the principal axes are derived from analysis of Lunar Laser Ranging data.
7.- The Euler angles that define the rotation from the principal axis frame to the inertial frame are: the angle from the X-axis of the inertial frame along the X-Y plane to the intersection of the mantle equator; the inclination of the mantle equator from the inertial X-Y plane; and the longitude from the intersection of the inertial X-Y plane with the mantle equator along the mantle equator to the prime meridian.
It is very straight forward.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Good job.
I don’t know why this weird, crazy ClintR keeps spitting out his pseudoscientific nonsense, and insults anyone as an “idiot” who writes something he can’t understand, let alone contradict.
In my native tongue, I would say: ” Madame (ou Monsieur) ClintR, vous devriez consulter un psy. ”
{ I think ClintR is more of a male gender. In over 50 years of intimate contact with women, I have never seen a woman who behaved so stubborn, so ignorant, so dumb, so dense. }
J.-P. D.
JD, you and Norman must have gone to the same Troll School. You sound just like him. You’ve even got the insults and false accusations down pat.
ClintR
You cowardly insult here nearly everybody, behind your nickname.
I insult you back as long as you insult us.
When you stop insulting us, I’ll stop insulting you.
J.-P. D.
That’s not true, JD. You had no reason for those comments. You’re just a troll, like Norman. You don’t understand the science that you believe in, so you try to discredit those that know the science.
Quit trolling, and try to learn something.
Sep 04, 2013 · This finding of Neukom et al. goes a long ways towards demonstrating that: (1) the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon that was comprised of even warmer intervals than the warmest portion of the Current Warm Period, and that (2) the greater warmth of the Medieval Warm Period occurred when there was far less CO2 in the air than there is nowadays,
How could that be? This means some other factor caused the Medieval Warm Period. That is the argument against co2.
The argument for co2 is concentrations today are much higher then during the Medieval Warm Period.
This means if co2 is the MAIN driver of the climate the global temperatures from here should far exceed the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period.
Only time will tell. If they don’t then we have to consider other factors.
I am wondering if land changes(potential albedo impacts) might be in play.
Salvatore
It is evident to me that, like lots of other Skeptics (and, in addition, ALL Pseudoskeptics, you won’t be able to accept the two graphs below, made out of data generated by the PAGES2K project:
https://tinyurl.com/yxa6bly7
1. PAGES2K 0 AD – 2000 AD
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
This is PAGES2K’s original data (the dark blue emphasis for 1891-2000 is mine).
2. PAGES2K 1891 AD – 2000 AD
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p8s2y7N90H2nj-TqrGHNP7lvyEYQqkS8/view
In the second graph, I present the PAGES2K data together with the global temperature series provided by Japan’s Met Agency, know to process measurements without any interpolation.
J.-P. D.
https://www.co2levels.org/
this needs to be reconciled.
What are you thinking needs to be reconciled here?
What will have to be reconciled in my opinion is given the big increase in co2 in contrast to the Medieval Warm Period the global temperatures are still at best no higher then they were back then.
If CO2 is the main driver then given the concentrations today global temperatures are going to have far exceed those of the MWP.
So from this point on global temperatures are going to have to keep increasing to give the co2 global warming theory validity.
Again time will tell.
First…CO2 is not the only driver for temperature. Sometimes it is a significant driver and sometimes it isn’t. We just happen to be living in an era where it is.
Second…the abundance of evidence allows us to conclude that it is warmer today than at any point in the last 1000 years at least with reasonable confidence. In fact, it is likely warmer today than at any point after the Holocene Climate Optimum. And there’s a better than even chance that it was even warmer than that. And we still have +0.8 W/m^2 energy imbalance on the planet so it’s only going to get warmer.
Third…Hubert Lamb is the guy who pioneered research into the MWP and LIA. He had been saying all along that the MWP and LIA were not global events. They were mainly isolated to the periphery of the North Atlantic. It is unfortunate that the perception of the MWP and LIA morphed into global scale events without sufficient supporting evidence.
“…the abundance of evidence allows us to conclude that it is warmer today than at any point in the last 1000 years at least with reasonable confidence.”
Thermometers weren’t invented until about 400 years ago. So your “reasonable confidence” is only your belief. And a belief is NOT science.
“And we still have +0.8 W/m^2 energy imbalance on the planet so it’s only going to get warmer.”
There is no lasting energy imbalance! All energy imbalances are resolved as they occur. It’s called “weather”. So the idea that Earth can somehow store up energy, is nonsense.
And yet the Earth accumulates thermal energy.
Barry and David,
I think that was an informal logical error to argue a straw man against me. The quote that is a prediction also include the explanation below:
“While La Nia is limited to the Pacific, its effects act to cool the entire planet’s temperatures, like natural air conditioning for Earth. But its impact has been more than offset by heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses, the WMO said.”
The average reasonable person would read this as indicating the lack of La Nina cooling in 2020 is overridden by CO2 and would almost certainly infer and not that it is to early to see the effect of La Nina under normal circumstances where there is a lag between Pacific temperatures and global temperatures.
For the record I am not a conservative- I actually was a US liberal until forced away by fake science.
I will apologise. I should be more sensitive to peoples religious beliefs. I keep forgetting that the woke religion is a belief system and not eligible for logical discussion.
let’s get a reminder of what you wrote:
“The woke left is wrong all the time and they never loose credibility. Here we have a prediction that La Nina cooling will not happen this year. Anyone want to support this prediction?”
Now you have shifted the goalposts, speaking of straw men.
“The average reasonable person would read this as indicating the lack of La Nina cooling in 2020 is overridden by CO2 and would almost certainly infer and not that it is to early to see the effect of La Nina under normal circumstances where there is a lag between Pacific temperatures and global temperatures.”
To your original point – no, they were not saying that la Nina cooling would not happen.
To your second, ‘amended’ point – yes they were saying that its effect will be overriden by global warming.
To your new point, la Nina conditions have been present since August, and temps usually start to decline a couple of months after these conditions have been met. Peak ENSO events are lagged by peak global temps 2-4 months later.
They are pointing out that we are almost certainly going to have a near-record breaking year with no strong el Nino that almost always accompanies a record-breaker, and with la Ninas conditions also present.
These are also strong la Nina values, by the way.
Here is what CNN was drawing from.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/2020-track-be-one-of-three-warmest-years-record
“Record warm years have usually coincided with a strong El Nio event, as was the case in 2016. We are now experiencing a La Nina, which has a cooling effect on global temperatures, but has not been sufficient to put a brake on this year’s heat. Despite the current La Nina conditions, this year has already shown near record heat comparable to the previous record of 2016,” said Prof. Taalas.
Warm blast
This pressure difference in turn revealed that the medieval period must have experienced a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent.
The idea to use growth rings to work out past climate change is not new, but Trouet’s team is the first to look back beyond 1400 in the European record. They found that the strongly positive NAO lasted for about 350 years from 1050 to 1400.
By combining their data with information from other regions of the world during medieval times and plugging it into different models, the researchers have also come up with a hypothesis of what made the warm winds so persistent.
“It turns out that in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal,” says Trouet.
Cl
climate loop
El Niño and the NAO are connected by a process called thermohaline circulation, which drives the “ocean conveyor belt” that shuttles sea water of different density around the world’s oceans.
According to Trouet, a Pacific La Niña mode and a positive NAO mode could have reinforced each other in a positive feedback loop – and this could explain the stability of the medieval climate anomaly.
Trouet thinks external forces like abrupt changes in solar output or volcanism must have started and stopped the cycle, and hopes to pinpoint the most likely candidates in a workshop with other climatologists in May.
Is this the reason?
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/medieval-warm-period
Maybe it is this?
What I am trying to do with my posting is now try to figure out why the Medieval Warm Period took place and why it ended.
This might help get hints about today.
And when you add in the 0.3C (at least) of warming in the last 20 years that brings the instrumental record to +0.8C (at least) or about 1.1C higher (at least) than the MWP on that graph.
Salvatore Del Prete
This is probably as good a Holocene temperature record as we can get at present.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
The right hand temperature scale is GISS anomalies. 0C on the scale corresponds to 14C true temperature.
You can see the Holocene Optimum temperatures around 0.5C and the long decline over the last 5000 years.
CO2 concentration was effectively constant at 280ppm for the last 10,000 years, so the temperature decline was probably due to something else. The literature attributes it to our drifting away from the Milankivich cycle sweet spot.
You can also see the MAP as a temporary warming trend at around 0C and 0 AD.Then the decline resumes.
The underlying message for me from this data is that the Holocene Optimum was at about 0.5C. Over 3000 years it cooled to 0C around the MAP and then to -0.5C by the 19th century.
Since the end of the 19th century temperatures have risen to 1C.
We are now 1.5 C warmer than the 19th century minimum, 1C warmer than the MWP and 0.5C warmer than the Holocene Optimum, at a time when natural forcings should have us below -0.5C and falling.
Good chart the only problem is there are many sources that dispute that data and show the MWP and especially the Holocene Optimum warmer then today.
I tend to believe that data.
Salvatore
Which chart do you mean?
J.-P. D.
Entropic man’s chart was nice but I don’t think the data is quite correct. My opinion only.
This paper is more recent than Marcott et. al:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/jpg/climate.jpg
Can you post a link to the publication where that graph comes from?
It is coursework material from the University of California Riverside.
https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm
“Data obtained from Internet sources and checked with
various authors for relative accuracy as of 2020”
Even if you add another .2c change or even .3c change from 2005 to 2020 temperatures still cooler today then in the past.
Can you post a link to a comprehensive study supporting this claim?
Note that by “comprehensive study” I mean a study using multiple lines of evidence. Something like…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
THERE ARE COUNTLESS STUDIES SHOWING THE SAME DATA.
What is the point. One will believe the data they like.
If there really are “COUNTLESS STUDIES” then it should be really easy to find a comprehensive study of the global mean temperature that is inconsistent with the publication I posted above and others like it.
Go with what you believe.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/effect-of-a-holocene-climatic-optimum-on-the-evolution-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet-during-the-last-10-kyr/1B273853FF3CE712602B3AA90A0E57DB
One of the countless comprehensive studies. Again believe what you want.
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 85 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 23C warmer than present-day values. However, this warming left little imprint on commonly used temperature proxies often used to derive the climate forcing for simulations of the past evolution of the Greenland ice sheet. ”
This is the start of your abstract. It starts with an unsupported assertion and then says that it disagrees with the existing temperature proxies for the period
It also refers to a period between 8000 and 5000 years ago. Could you please unpack a little and explain how this relates to your estimate of MWP temperatures.
That’s certainly a study. But it is not a comprehensive study of global mean temperatures. It’s not even focused on temperatures. The intent is to further our understanding of the Greenland ice sheet. They select temperature reconstructions from Greenland only and which happen to show the highest temperatures for the Holocene Climate Optimum. That’s fine considering the context and purpose of the publication. But no one is going to make a serious argument about global Holocene temperatures by selecting a dataset from a single site. Nevermind that it was the one which showed the Holocene Climate Optimum as being the warmest.
The focus of the sun changes over time, and it was shining most strongly on the Northern Hemisphere just before and partway through the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Greenland got a lot more solar radiation at that timne, which is why temps then were almost certainly higher thaan Greenland temps now.
It’s possible global temps were as hot or hotter than now at that time, caused by the insolation changes over several thousand years.
Salvatore Del Prete
Choosing good data on which to base your conclusion is always difficult. You look for agreement between sources.
Thus the close agreement on Holocene temperatures between Marcott et al 2013, Kaufman et al 2020 and other workers gives confidence in the pattern they describe.
Set against them is your graph from the University of California Riverside, which has all the hallmarks of a sketch by the lecturer.
What particularly concerns me is that the graph of the last 2000 years looks suspiciously like Hubert Lamb’s MWP graph based on mediaeval documents.
In previous debate that graph has been used by sceptics to argue that the MWP was warmer than the present.
While state of the art sixty years ago, Lamb’s graph has long been superceded and the high MWP temperatures calculated by Lamb were not replicated in later work.
Again you go with what you agree with.
What was the average temperature during the Holocene?
By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.
THIS IS THE PREVAILNG VIEW BY FAR.
If you don’t agree fine.
These people are amazing. Can’t reason with them.
Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant.
I have shown very recent data .I give up.
https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html
This proves my point. I rest my case.
Actually it doesnt.
A site which begins by exhorting me to “view the facts without prejudice” and then tries to demonstrate that there is no link between temperature and CO2 concentration does not inspire my confidence.
Could we agree to stick to peer-reviewed data as far as possible?
Your ridiculous in that you embrace a view that is simply that a view.
Go for it .
Also any site that does not embrace your view is wrong.
Article says:
“During the Quaternary, CO2 concentration and temperature have tracked closely. That raises the question about causation and effect. If we follow the “official” greenhouse gas hypothesis, as published in the various IPCC reports, temperature follows CO2 concentration. So, the relation would be:
Unknown cyclical forcing (???) –> CO2 concentration fluctuations –> temperature fluctuations”
That is NOT how the IPCC puts it. IPCC says:
Milankovitch cycle –> temp fluctuations –> CO2 fluctuations –> which amplify temp fluctuations
Article makes false reasoning from false premise. Fallacy = straw man.
“THIS IS THE PREVAILNG VIEW BY FAR.”
That turns out not to be the case.
The prevailing view tends to follow Marcott and Kaufman.
If we are going to disagree on which datasets are valid, we are not going to get far.
You see the MWP as reaching anomaly 2.5C, while my data show it reaching anomaly 0C.
If we cannot agree on a temperature for the MWP we are unlikely to agree on a mechanism.
No that is the view you want to believe.
I came originally to this blog because I wanted to believe that AGW/climate change was not happening and sought evidence to support that belief.
Unfortunately the scientists who trained me did too good a job. Years of reading evidence and debating has just confirmed that the consensus AGW paradigm is much more probable than the sceptic view.
I would love to agree with you, but the weight of evidence is against you and I was never very good at fooling myself.
I have stated so far my theory has not worked and so far the AGW theory has the upper hand.
I see no evidence of cooling at all only warming.
So as each month goes by with out cooling AGW theory will have more merit.
I am not going to go against data that I know it not biased like Dr. Spencer’s which show no global cooling at all.
entropic…”Unfortunately the scientists who trained me did too good a job. Years of reading evidence and debating has just confirmed that the consensus AGW paradigm is much more probable than the sceptic view”
It’s not that at all, they had a gullible protege on their hands. Having debated with you I can see the appeal to authority in you that is rampant among alarmists. You don’t have a shred of scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, to prove trace gases in the atmosphere are warming it.
Here’s a shred of evidence:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?
Somewhere above I read, one more time:
” … it is possible for CO2 to drive temps lower, since it radiates energy to space. ”
*
This is pure incompetence written, as usual, behind a nickname.
Never would we experience one of these trolls writing such nonsense and signing with a real name below. NEVER!
*
CO2, H2O, N2O, CH4, CF gases, and all other IR intercepting molecules never cool anything!
All what these molecules intercept is statistically
– 50 % reradiated down to lower atmospheric layers anyway, instead of reaching space;
– 50 % reradiated to upper layers (possibly intercepted and reradiated again) and thus reaches outer space with less energy than if it had reached outer space directly from the surface, like it (luckily) still happens within the atmospheric window.
Why do these ignorant people repeat the same nonsense every time?
It is BORING.
J.-P. D.
This is another example of you trolling, JD. You don’t understand the science, so you lash out in desperation, trying to save your false beliefs.
Radiative gases emit energy to space. The only way Earth can get rid of excess energy is to radiate to space. That means radiative gases most definitely cool Earth. That doesn’t fit your belief system, so you try to squelch reality.
Like the other trolls, you are even willing to make things up, to pervert and distort reality.
ClintR
” Radiative gases emit energy to space.
You still don’t understand.
Yes: they emit to space, ClintR baby. Indeed they DO!
But the result of
— absorp-tion and reemission of IR energy by gases (H2O, CO2, N2O, CH4, etc etc)
is ALWAYS lower than
— the energy emitted by the surface and reaching outer space DIRECTLY, without being intercepted in between.
Is that so difficult to understand?
” Like the other trolls, you are even willing to make things up, to pervert and distort reality. ”
I sent this sentence back to you, ClintR baby.
I know: you will, like Robertson, reply and reply and reply the same incompetent, unscientific nonsense… doesn’t matter!
J.-P. D.
That’s a lot of keyboard abuse, JD, but yes, radiative gases most definitely cool Earth.
Binny,
Maybe you are aware of conservation laws, and how they apply to energy. Gases do not make energy vanish. Energy is conserved. Gases radiate precisely as much energy as they absorb.
Have a think about why both the surface and the atmosphere cool at night. Think about how the surface can cool more quickly than the atmosphere above it, resulting in a low level temperature inversion. Even though the atmosphere is warmer than the surface, both continue to cool!
Deny all you wish, and try to explain how your magical GHG properties accord with observed fact.
You are either ignorant, stupid or deluded – if you are not a fraud.
binny…”CO2, H2O, N2O, CH4, CF gases, and all other IR intercepting molecules never cool anything!
All what these molecules intercept is statistically
50 % reradiated down to lower atmospheric layers anyway, instead of reaching space;
50 % reradiated to upper layers (possibly intercepted and reradiated again)”
*****
What about the IR radiated sideways? Or on angles that miss the surface?
Which brings up a question related to quantum theory. Suppose you have a CO2 molecule located at 1 mile altitude. It looks like this:
O====C====O
Those dashed lines represent bonds created by electrons. Suppose that molecule intercepts IR from the surface, and one or more of those bonding electrons is excited to a higher energy level. When it falls back to its original energy level it emits a so-called photon of IR.
Now, is that so-called photon emitted in a straight line or is it emitted isotropically? If it’s emitted isotropically, it’s a wavefront, not a single-line burst of energy. If it’s emitted as a single-line burst of energy, there’s no telling whether it will go up, down, sideways, or along any angle in between.
No one knows if 50% goes up and 50% goes down, that’s a lame theory provided by an alarmist. We do know that any of the radiation hitting the surface has no effect since the molecules are likely to be in areas of the atmosphere that are in thermal equilibrium, or cooler than the surface. That means no heat can be transferred.
We also know that the gases listed above constitute less that 0.04% of atmospheric gases. That means the amount of surface radiation they absorb is insignificant. Most of the surface radiation bypasses them.
That doesn’t matter. As surface IR gains altitude it loses intensity in proportion to the altitude covered. By the time the IR is a feet feet from the surface, it has lost its potency. That IR can be detected aloft by satellite telemetry even though it never reaches more than a few feet above the surface.
Robertson
Stop writing your endless nonsense. It’s all the time the same blah blah.
Give it up, I’m sad to have to correct you all the time.
JD is trolling, again.
binny…”Stop writing your endless nonsense. Its all the time the same blah blah.”
Translation: binny has no answer therefore he must resort to childish ad homs and insults.
Good data is in the eyes of the beholder. The data some embrace here has an agenda.
Global warming enthusiast will never ever choose data that does not give them the strongest of arguments. This is why them and their data is full of BS.
salvatore…”Global warming enthusiast will never ever choose data that does not give them the strongest of arguments”.
What data support the anthropogenic theory? I have seen nothing that can be directly linked to anthropogenic warming.
agree
murray…”Ive kept an eye on what happened after Montreal and it frankly amazes me that when everyone can agree that the energy in ultraviolet will certainly sterilise the Earths surface, so required and received action, that the same energy might not cause some heat”.
We know that UV makes human skin so hot it can burn. UV is a very intense form of solar EM and it obviously heats far more than the IPCC is willing to acknowledge.
Besides the IPCC mandate is to find evidence of anthropogenic warming. It has no interest in natural warming and that shows clearly in its myopic opinions.
There is no reason why UV cannot warm nitrogen and oxygen molecules which account for 99% of the atmosphere. Even if the warming is just a tiny amount, the sheer abundance of N2/O2 would create a far greater effect than the 0.04% of CO2.
If a scientist did write a paper showing a warming effect for UV, it would be ignored by the IPCC. The only papers that get reviewed are those that support the weak anthropogenic theory.
“We know that UV makes human skin so hot it can burn.”
No, individual UV photons have enough energy to break individual bounds in molecules. E = hf, and UV has high f. “Sunburns” are not thermal burns. Sunburns are damage at the molecular level. The skin can remain perfectly cool and still get burns from UV.
tim…” The skin can remain perfectly cool and still get burns from UV”.
You’re being silly, Tim. When your skin becomes red with a sunburn are you claiming it remains cool to the touch? You are essentially being roasted like meat in a microwave oven. The process is different since meat cooks in a microwave by heating water molecules in the meat. At the UV level, the radiation causes the molecules in the skin to heat, causing burning and redness.
If the molecules broke down, the skin would change composition. It can and produce cancer but its unusual for a sunburn to become a large mass of cancerous skin. Cancer usually occurs in small lesions on the skin.
All I do know is so far no sign of global cooling and until/if that occurs us that believe in global cooling have nothing to stand on.
The data has to move in our favor to some degree before we can claim any sense of being correct.
Great thing about scientific truth is, because of uncertainty we never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.
No theory or mathematical argument, no matter how compelling and beautiful, can be maintained in the face of contradiction with observation or with experiment.
Salvatore Del Prete
When you examine the theoretical physics underlying the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis you find that it predicts a number of changes in the Earth system which can be tested by observation.This is a partial list(sorry about the length)
Shrinking upper atmosphere
Cooling upper atmosphere
Rising tropopause
Less outgoing longwave radiation
More downwelling longwave radiation
Increasing ocean heat content
Energy conserved
More fossil fuel carbon in atmosphere
More fossil fuel carbon in ocean
More fossil fuel in biomass
Less oxygen in atmosphere
Winters warming faster than Summers
Nights warming faster than days
Poles warming faster than Equator
It’s not just about temperature. All of the above are to be expected if AGW is happening and all have been observed.
If you want to convince me that AGW is wrong you have two options.
1) Show me that all these different empirical observations are mistaken or fiddled.
2) That another hypothesis can explain these observations better than AGW.
I’ll just choose 3 out of the batch:
Less outgoing longwave radiation
More downwelling longwave radiation
Increasing ocean heat content
Show us the “theoretical physics” and accompanying observations for the 3 chosen.
I recommend the review paper “Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperatures” by Raymond T Pierrehumbert.
It was published in Physics Today January 2011.
The original is paywalled but a quick search will lead you to several pdfs.
That nonsense has already been debunked. Pierrehumbert doesn’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. He actually believe Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!
So, you have NOTHING to back up your claims.
ClintR says:
“He actually believe Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!”
Yada yada yada, take it to the SCOTUS.
For ocean heat content try the review here, and the reference list of papers at the end.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
That source mentions ocean heat content, but it fails to provide the “theoretical physics” showing how atmospheric CO2 can warm the ocean.
Again, you have NOTHING to support your claims.
The problem is the earth’s climate has always had periods of warmth and cold this so far is no different.
I will give you this so far the data does seem to support what you are presenting. The problem is the period of time and magnitude of change and rate of change is yet not great enough to separate this from previous times.
Now maybe it will be but as of today not yet. Only time will tell.
Entropic man you have had this in the past, long before AGW came on the scene.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
EM,
You would be a lot more convincing if you could actually provide a copy of this purported AGW hypothesis.
But you cannot, of course! Why should anybody listen to somebody who cannot even describe what it is they are promoting? You demand to be convinced that AGW is wrong. You probably mean you are demanding somebody that somebody prove that something you cannot even clearly describe is wrong!
Are you too dim to accept that the surface cools at night? Or that the Earth has cooled? Or that burning stuff creates heat?
Fit things like those into your imaginary hypothesis, if you want to convince people that you are credible. Otherwise, you are just another stupid CO2 hating fanatic.
salvatore…”All I do know is so far no sign of global cooling and until/if that occurs us that believe in global cooling have nothing to stand on”.
The Weather Network is advising us here on the West Coast of Canada to expect colder weather with lots of snow in January and February. It is happens, NOAA will likely report it as warming.
Seriously, Salvatore, I think NOAA is altering the UAH data before they hand it over. They have altered all the surface data why not the sat data?
I don’t know. Time will tell.
What is pathetic is some of the latest data on past temperature reconstructions is nothing more then a fraud.
AGW enthusiast are trying to do away with past temperature changes while trying to exaggerate current temperature changes.
Not going to work. It is a fraud.
Salvatore
Please show us the data you mean; I’ll have a look at it tomorrow.
But… don’t try to tell me it’s PAGES2K!
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
Any data that tries to diminish the Little Ice Age, MWP, Holocene Optimum etc.
I don’t need to show anything more.
Nobody is diminishing the MWP and LIA. They are real phenomenon that caused significant changes in average temperature in the periphery of the North Atlantic. This is consistent with multiple studies using multiple proxy sources. I think the confusion here is that along way this morphed from a largely regional scale phenomenon into a global scale phenomenon without any supporting evidence and in contradiction to Hubert Lamb’s research which had always said it was regional and not global. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that the global mean temperature wasn’t warmer/cooler during the MWP/LIA. It was. It’s just that the magnitude of these events were significantly less on a global scale as compared to a regional scale.
ok
I am done for a while be back in a few days.
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm
What we are up against is those who believe in AGW are trying to do away with data that does not lend support to their false lying narratives.
Their peer review is meaningless because they are all in the scam together.
What I have sent is the correct data and has been the standard until the AGW movement came about and when the temperatures due to AGW failed to make historical highs as is the case presently, they changed the data rather then admit to the fact AGW had failed to set new record warmth.
It is a travesty to science and a fraud put upon those that don’t know any better. This started with the hockey stick BS, and continues.
Salvatore, none of the references in the article you have provided (which is not a peer-reviewed study), cover the holocene. All are before it.
There are thousdands of papers covering holocene temps and the last 1000 to 2000 years, yet precisely NONE of them are used as references. The majority seem to cover events 2-4 billion years ago.
Did you check the references at all?
So this article has nothing useful to say about temps for the 100, 2000 or 10,000 years.
Barry peer review is part of the problem.
Salvatore, none of the references in the article cover the medieval warm period, the little ice age, or the period of the last 10,000 years. You have provided this reference while you are talking about those periods.
There are many studies covering the periods you have been talking about. Your article includes none of them.
“Notice what I sent goes to year 2020”
No, the article says the literature was checked up to 2020, not that the temperature graphs go up to 2020 (they don’t).
NOTE: Data obtained from Internet sources and checked with various authors for relative accuracy as of 2020
“Barry peer review is part of the problem.”
Why then have you cited an article that references peer-reviewed studies exclusively?
My answer is we agree to disagree.
Notice what I sent goes to year 2020 and is the correct historical climatic data not the BS that is trying to be put upon the public.
https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c016766a4fa51970b-pi
one more.
Salvatore,
Be a good citizen and only use the correct “adjusted” data. Scientists didn’t know how to measure temperature properly (read thermometers) before 2000.
In what world would you prefer unadjusted data that is contaminated with known biases or errors over adjusted data that has had those biases and errors corrected?
If data is known to be inaccurate, what is the point of using it? If adjusted data is useful, who plays God adjusting it before passing it on? Do the adjusters believe everybody else is too stupid to draw their own conclusions from the raw data?
If your measurements are so pointless they dont support your hypothesis, either change the hypothesis, or learn how to measure things better. Its called science.
Swenson
Temperature measurement has changed over time. Sea surface measurements were take in a wooden bucket in the 1800s, then a canvas bucket, then the engine cooling water intake and now by buoys.Buckets read lower than later methods because of evaporation.
To meaningfully compare sea surface temperatures across 200 years you have to add a small amount to each bucket measurement to match the later methods.
This means that the adjusted data shows less warming than the raw data.
You conspiracy theorists claim that adjustments are a fiddle to increase the rate of warming. In reality adjustments decrease the rate of warming. Now why would we do that?
Because you are stupid?
The raw global data has a warmer centennial trend than the homogenised data. WTF are you talking about?
Salvatore,
The utopianists must achieve their grand vision, and they can only do that by deciding winners and losers in the market. They are the masterminds, and anyone who does not agree with them or believe their myopic science are deniers. They must right all wrongs by reigning in evil capitalists like big oil, big coal, and Wall Street. Don’t you know that?
OF COURSE.
I don’t know about the utopians, but the rhetoriticians can stop flapping their gums about qualitative stuff and provide some reasonable source material, with data included.
I won’t wait for you to do that, Stephen. You only do rhetoric.
I don’t need to. Ed Berry, Murray Salby, Hermann Harde, and others have provided you all the evidence you need. You advance your fascist ideology in the name of science.
Thanks for the short list of fringe cranks.
And what, pray tell, is my “fascist ideology in the name of science?” Make sure you quote me, or it won’t be my ideology, will it?
Your support of this climate change nonsense. Have you ever picked up Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate by Murray Salby? Not a fringe crank. Have you found any flaws in Berry’s paper? If so, why don’t you go there and challenge his physics? I’d love to hear what you have to say.
His name is Murry and his ideas are bonkers.
“his ideas are bonkers”
Oh yes. And here is a review of Salby’s book,
Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate:
‘The first edition is a classic. It is the single volume that I recommend to every one of my students in atmospheric science.’
Professor Yuk Yung
California Institute of Technology
Specifically, His ideas on origins of atmospheric CO2, as stated in his lectures that are on Youtube are bonkers, I think Svante would agree.
They contain many misleading or false statements and deceptive graphs, and have been thoroughly debunked by many.
See eg
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
https://skepticalscience.com//salby_correlation_conundrum.html
https://skepticalscience.com//salbyratio.html
What the hell is facist about acknowledging the science that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming?
Do you even knwo what facism is, you goose?
Yes, I’ve read Salby, and Pielke Snr and Junior, and Lindzen, and Herman Harde, and Gerlich and Teusner, and Jeff Condon, and Anthony Watts, and Ernst Beck, Steve McIntyre, Ian Plimer Bjorn Lomborg, Akasofu, Tim Ball, Judith Curry, Lord Monckton, Roy Spencer, John Christie….
A few of those people are scientists. Several have qualifications in environmental sciences or strongly related (like our host).
I’ve read the mavericks over the 14 years I’ve been investigating this. And I’ve read the rebuttals to them. I’ve noted that the ‘skeptics’ views, taken together, have contradictory components, whereas the mainstream understanding is coherent.
I like science and have had a layman’s interest since I were a wee laddie. I’m very familiar with this subject. And I’m not interested in ideology.
So tell me what facist ideology you’ve seen me espouse. Please quote me to be sure you’ve read my words and not someone else’s.
Quote me. Or quit being a fecking idiot.
Anyone interested can see the Australian BOMs convoluted attempt to answer one of its own FAQs – 9. Why does the ACORN-SAT dataset start in 1910, and not earlier?
No mention of the fact that the documented extreme heat waves prior to 1910 had to be expunged somehow!
Are AGW fanatics frauds, fakers, or just incompetent?
Competent people provide links and make their cased substantively instead of declaring stuff as if it’s self evident.
Really? As I said, if you are interested, you can search for the exact quote. I am not making a case, as you put it, nor do I assume you are too stupid to draw your own conclusions.
If you believe, amongst other things, that official temperature records prior to 1910 are scientifically unreliable, good for you! Do you also think that statements such as *hottest year ever* should come with a disclaimer that *ever* really means *since 1910*?
That would certainly help obviate the need for any conclusions about temperatures prior to 1910 to be taken into consideration.
So, are AGW fanatics frauds, fakers, or just incompetent, do you think?
Why is it always those who deny science, or conservatives, who never provide any references?
Nope, I’m not doing the homework you set. You’re full of it, and you don’t have an way of substantiating what you’re saying, and the obvious tactic when called on it is to deflect just like you are doing.
Anything but be a stright-shooter.
barry, you don’t have a good track record when it comes to accepting reality. You, and your ilk, prefer to “adjust” reality to suit your beliefs. Want just one example?
Is the ball on a string rotating about its axis, as you swing it in circles?
a) Yes
b) No
It’s a simple answer to a simple question, but frauds and fakers are unable to answer.
What’s your answer?
Proof that ball on string rotates about its own axis.
Refer to the following:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
Go to page 3 and look at the bottom figure. 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 far outside edge of the ball. All the equations noted in this figure are still valid. V(B) is the sum of the translational component V(A) plus a rotational component (wrB/A) relative to A. We know what omega (w) is because the position vector for B relative to A (rB/A) makes one complete rotation per orbit of the ball.
So there is your proof 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 non-spinner cultists have a difficult time admitting the center of mass and the far side of the ball (the moon as well) have different velocities. (still waiting for those calcs, ClintR)
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’. 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.
I will provide an example calculation to confirm the above proof works.
You’re STILL confused by “orbital motion”, SGW.
That example is a body with both motions — orbiting AND rotating about its axis. Earth is a real example of both motions. But a ball on a string only has the one motion. It is orbiting, but not rotating about its axis. If it were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. Moon is a real example of only orbital motion.
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
To make the problem easy to calculate, we will use convenient numbers:
Length of String = 8m
Diameter of Ball = 2m
angular velocity of the ball’s orbit = 1rad/s CCW
rB/A = 1m (see diagram)
In regards to the diagram shown in the reference, Point A is at the ball’s center of mass (9m from origin “O”). Point “B” is on the far side edge of ball (10m from origin)
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 = (1rad/s)9m = 9m/s
V(B/A) = wrB/A = (1rad/s)1m = 1m/s
Therefore: V(B) = 9m/s + 1m/s = 10 m/s
Now let’s calculate V(B) without relative velocities:
V(B) = wr = (1rad/s)10m = 10m/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 8m/s. Vnear side = wr = (1rad/s)8m = 8m/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 velocities and angular velocities.
ClintR,
I know the above example is WAY over your head, so I expect the usually non-sense from our in-house bearded lady circus freak.
You’re STILL confused, SGW.
If B is rotating relative to A, which you indicate, V(B/A) = 1m/s, then the ball is rotating about its axis. The string would wrap around the ball.
For pure orbital motion, it should be: V(B/A) = 0, as ω = 0, for the ball.
The two motions have you terribly confused. Upthread, there was a new commenter equally confused. He couldn’t even walk around a tree without looking like an idiot.
Can you walk around a tree?
ClintR,
You got nothing. You never solve anything. Your alleged “debunk” was a joke.
I used all the equations and principles of kinematics correctly in accordance with the diagram, and the numbers all checked out.
Sorry your low IQ keeps you from understanding simple concepts.
ClintR snorts:
“For pure orbital motion, it should be: V(B/A) = 0, as ω = 0, for the ball.”
You clowns come up with your own definitions that are not in accordance with the principles of kinematics. Hey, if your alternate reality makes you happy?
I solved the problem using the kinematic equation for the general motion of a rigid body as noted in that figure. All the calculations checked out using the reference frames noted.
Sorry for your stupidity.
Yes, it checks out for BOTH orbiting and rotating about an axis. But Moon is only orbiting.
The ball in your example would have the string wrapping around it.
ClintR giggles:
“The ball in your example would have the string wrapping around it!”
The ball and string have the same angular velocity, Einstein, so that won’t happen.
So once again, ClintR redefines terms, makes stupid comments, and has yet to solve any equations.
Here’s a suggestion. Use a random word generator. A random word generator would make more sense than your comments.
And with that. You are on ignore just like DREMT, since you are an ignorant troll posting random BS.
Instead of making point B on the far side of the ball, put point B where the string is attached. Now, as B rotates about A (rotates about its axis), the string wraps around the ball. The ball, in you example, is BOTH orbiting AND rotating about its axis.
Go upthread and find my example of walking around a tree, holding a rope. Assuming you know how to walk around a tree….
ClintR,
I’ll finish this thread. Referring to the figure again:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
It’s the same sample problem I posted earlier but we’ll introduce a new point “C” where the ball connects to the string.
First let’s solve for the tangential velocity of point “C”.
V(C) = wr = (1rad/s)8m = 8m/s CCW.
Now lets solve for V(C) using the equation noted in the figure:
V(C) = V(A) + V(C/A)
V(A) = wr = (1rad/s)9m = 9m/s
V(C/A) = wrC/A = (1rad/s)1m = 1m/s
Since the ball is rotating on its own axis CCW with a tangential velocity of 1m/s wrt to its center of mass, the direction of that velocity vector at point C would be in the CW direction, so the 1m/s value would be negative, therefore:
V(C) = V(A) – V(C/A) = 9m/s – 1m/s = 8m/s
Therefore at point C, both the ball and string are moving at 8m/s and therefore do not wrap around each other. It was calculated using two different methods.
Give it up. I took all this stuff in university; physics and advanced dynamics (the kind mechanical engineers take). You are simply confused. You redefine stuff and do not use proper reference frames. Go back to your climate stuff. I probably will agree with you on that, since I don’t accept the GHE.
Nope, you still don’t get it.
Point C is moving around the center of the ball (“Since the ball is rotating on its own axis…”), so point C is moving away from the center of the orbit. So the string wraps around the ball.
I proved with kinematic equations for velocity, that point C on the ball and point C on the string move at the same velocity. I proved it 2 ways.
All you can do is say “nope” with nothing to support your flapping mouth. That does not cut it. You have a mental block where you cannot visualize what is happening. I can not only visualize it, but prove it with kinematic velocity equations for the general motion of a rigid body.
This is apparently beyond your level of intelligence. You are not grasping relative velocity. The ball does not rotate wrt the string, but it does rotate wrt the X’-Y’ coordinate system centered on the ball’s center of mass. For every orbit of the ball, the position vector rB/A makes one rotation about A.
Here is an easy way to understand it. Let’s use the numbers of a clock to make it simple. We’ll start at the Noon position, with point B at the far edge of ball, “A” in the center, and “C” where the string connects to the ball. Let’s also draw a line from B to C for reference (which will be pointing straight up) Now let’s move the ball 90 degrees CCW. If you did NOT rotate the ball, the ball at the 9:00 o’clock position would be oriented the same way as it was in the noon position, with line BC pointing straight up, and the string would rap around the ball. But with the ball on a string, the ball rotates 90 degrees on its own axis as the string rotates 90 degrees about the origin “O”, so the string will never wrap around the ball. That’s the easiest way to explain it.
But the correct way is to solve the kinematic velocity equations to prove it, which is what I did.
It is apparent that you either are being a troll, and do understand it, or you’re just ignorant and will never get it. I think the latter.
The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis. The ball is not rotating about its own center of mass. There is only axis of rotation, at the center of the orbit. There are not two axes of rotation. All as demonstrated here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564308
Nope SGW, you STILL don’t get it. You don’t understand orbital motion. You haven’t learned a thing we’ve been teaching.
In your new scenario, if the ball orbits CCW from 12:00 to 9:00, the B-C line is horizontal, with C facing the center of the clock. Pure orbital motion is demonstrated by the same side always facing the center of the orbit, just as with a ball on a string, or Moon.
You incorrectly believe orbital motion is both orbiting AND rotating. That means you believe Moon is rotating CCW to make up for the imaginary CW rotation. It would look like 3 motions:
1) Orbiting
2) CW rotation
3) CCW rotation
IMPOSSIBLE!
You believe Moon is rotating one way to counter rotating the other way! Such a combination of motions only happens in your imagination.
“Kinematics” is one of the things messing you up. Orbital motion is closer to “Kinetics”, as forces are acting on an orbiting body. Gravity changes the direction of the body. You can’t understand the “resultant of two vectors”. Newton proved what orbital motion entailed, centuries ago. But Cassini obviously never studied Newton. Astronomers, astrophysicists, and astrologers typically don’t understand physics. So the mistake has never been corrected, since it doesn’t affect anything.
But what is amazing is how motivated people are to protect perverted nonsense. Their cult beliefs are more important to them than reality. They have no respect for truth, learning, or science. There are about a dozen people here like you. Guess how many other falsehoods your cult is protecting?
LMAO Clint. The ball on a string is a classic type kinematic problem. There are multiple kinematic references that state that ” 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.”
And I used the kinematic equations of velocity to prove this statement.
The ball in my sample problem when whirled on the string was rotating on its own axis at 1 rad/s CCW, which was the same rate as the orbit of the ball. Using that data, I solved the kinematic velocity equation V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A) for the ball to come up with the velocity for its far side edge (Point B), which was 10 m/s. To check this answer I then used the general tangential velocity formula (v = wr) which when solved, resulted in the same answer of 10 m/s for point B as well, confirming the calculations were correct.
I am sorry you are still confused. You cannot even indicate what I did wrong, because I did everything right. You clowns still are clinging to your made-up definitions to suit your purposes, whereas I am using standard tried and true formulas for kinematic motion.
Maybe you should try using caps AND bold to prove your points??? LMAO.
You don’t “teach” anybody anything. You just spew your falsehoods, which are easily debunked using standard kinematic equations, as I did. As it states in practically every kinematic reference source:
You think “I” am in a cult?? LMFAO! You clowns are a minute minority for a reason.
OK. I am done with you. You just repeatedly make unsupported proclamations and don’t accept the fundamentals of kinematics so it’s pointless to continue discussion. YOU ARE ON IGNORE JUST LIKE DREMT.
So long, sucker.
I left out the quote from kinematic reference sources, but it don’t matter.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564912
SGW, the ball on a string has you as confused as does orbital motion.
The ball is attached to the string at point C. As you swing the ball in a circle, point C always faces you. The ball is orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
Orbital motion is more closely associated with Kinetics than Kinematics. I’m not convinced you understand either.
“The Papuan Eternity glacier is one of three areas with tropical glaciers left. In the Andes mountain range in Peru and scattered across Africa, tropical glaciers are shrinking, but as Puncak Jaya is the lowest in elevation it will be the first to go.”
Fanatical, fraudulent, faking, incompetent glaciers!
DMT, likely the glaciers have it right but the fanatical, fraudulent, faking, incompetent interpretations have it wrong.
You asked for references for longwave radiation and ocean heat content. I put them upthread, but repeat them here in case you missed them.
I recommend the review paper Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperatures by Raymond T Pierrehumbert.
It was published in Physics Today January 2011.
The original is paywalled but a quick search will lead you to several pdfs.
For ocean heat content try the review here.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
For further reading both papers have a reference list of relevant scientific papers at the end.
Swenson
Swenson says:
December 3, 2020 at 8:56 PM
“You would be a lot more convincing if you could actually provide a copy of this purported AGW hypothesis. ”
Always glad to help. Pierrehumbert’s paper is what you were looking for.
I responded upthread,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564231
and here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564235
but will offer a condensed version, in case you missed:
You have NOTHING to back up your claims.
There you go, courtesy of Judith Curry.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/
From the start of the “paper”:
“Climate models indicate that when the CO2 concentration increases above the pre=industrial level of about 280 ppm, there is a consequent increase in downward back IR radiation impinging on the surface of the Earth, including the world oceans. “
Climate models based on CO2 warming do NOT prove CO2 warming! You are convinced of your beliefs, but that ain’t science.
You have NOTHING to support your claims.
I realise that this might be a bit subtle for you. Let me summarise.
The ocean heats primarily by direct solar input which can penetrate many meters in depth. During sunny periods, heat is injected into the ocean via SW irradiance. But 24/7 the ocean is losing heat through the surface by conduction, convection, evaporation and radiant exchange with the atmosphere. Eventually an equilibrium is established (sort of). The effect we are talking about here is a minor addition to that picture. When the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled, a small additional downward IR flux impinges on the ocean. This flux warms the surface and reduces the rate of heat loss by the oceans. Thus the oceans find a new equilibrium at a slightly higher temperature.
I realize that you can “blah-blah” all day, but you need some “physics”.
Nonsense like this ain’t physics, When the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled, a small additional downward IR flux impinges on the ocean. This flux warms the surface and reduces the rate of heat loss by the oceans.”
That is your belief. That is the prevalent belief of your cult, but it ain’t physics.
Your cult believes that “infrared” automatically means temperature increase. That’s wrong. That’s the same false belief that claims two ice cubes can raise the temperature more than one ice cube, because the infrared fluxes add!
You have NOTHING to back up your claims.
Entropic man makes good arguments I have to give him that aside from the historical climatic temperature data.
Clint R you are correct. Infrared oceanic heat input is insignificant. Does nothing.
Salvatore
Who pretends that infrared oceanic heat input would be significant? Where exactly do you have that from?
J.-P. D.
entropicman
Bindidon
It’s a bit more subtle than that.Increased DWIR does not warm the ocean directly, but does decrease ocean heat loss to the atmosphere. See my recent reference.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
Most ocean heating is from shortwave radiation absorbed by the upper few metres of the bulk.
It then transfers down the temperature gradient from the ocean surface to a cooler atmosphere by conduction,IR radiation and evaporation. The resulting equilibrium determines the surface temperature.
Water is opaque to IR, so DWIR is absorbed by and heats only the surface film. The warmer surface film acts as an obstacle, a hurdle that heat must cross to transfer from the ocean bulk to the atmosphere.
The effect is similar to atmospheric CO2. The warm film slows the rate of energy flow out of the ocean and so raises the equilibrium temperature of the ocean.
And when CO2 increases DWIR increases, the surface film gets warmer, heat loss slows more and the equilibrium ocean temperature rises.
That’s certainly some great science-fiction.
The problem arises when one realizes the main emission from atmospheric CO2 is at a photon wavelength of 15μ. The wavelength corresponding to ice is about 10.6μ. IOW, the ice photon is about 40% “hotter” than the CO2 photon. So if you can’t heat water with ice, good luck trying it with something colder.
Hausfather et. al. have a nice summary update here… https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330316398_How_fast_are_the_oceans_warming
Entropic man
I read that paper last year, not so very convincing.
Under ‘subtle’ I understand something different…
J.-P. D.
That DWLR increases the temperature of the surface film is trivial physics.
How do you expect a warm surface film to affect heat flow through the surface and what supporting evidence do you have?
E, do you understand the difference between DWIR and photons from atmospheric CO2?
That may be one of your problems.
Even the slightest of increases in earth’s ALBEDO would trump all CO2 climate effects.
Ice, sea ice, snow, clouds, atmospheric volcanic ash, land usage all effect albedo
Did you just figure that out? That is not a good plan B. Try harder.
Some credit due here.
One hypothesis is that the Little Ice Age was triggered by a pulse of increased volcanic activity and albedo.
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age
Entropic man
No one would ever believe that Samalas in 1257 and Quilotoa in 1280 could be the sole origin of what is described in
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism
and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011GL050168
*
And above all, your source has greatly simplified the phenomenon.
Here is the original:
” Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 14301455 AD.
Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium.
A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.
*
Maybe we should at least look for some more of these brute force guys:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7+
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Iceland, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Açores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Iceland, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
J.-P. D.
Albedo is most important as a climate driver but it does not change very easily.
Volcanoes can be surprised you effective. The increase in albedo from the 1991 Pinatubo eruption can be seen in the UAH data as a temperature drop of 0.4C over two years.
There is a school of thought that the post-2000 pause was caused by increased albedo due to increased industrial pollution from China.
More light reading.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
“ClintR says:
December 4, 2020 at 8:07 AM
That nonsense has already been debunked. Pierrehumbert doesnt understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. He actually believe Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
Tonto the clown is at it again. The above hypothetical offends him but this nonesense is fine with him:
“ClintR says:
November 19, 2020 at 6:46 AM
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. Lets guess that the hemisphere filled with hammers has 100 times more mass of the other hemisphere. Now, put the halves back together.”
I appreciate you quoting me exactly. Most of the other trolls try to misrepresent my words.
You are welcome. Your words get funnier every frigging time I read them.
Good, that may encourage you to read them enough you begin to understand them.
Miracles can happen….
ClintR
If you actually read Pierrehumbert’s 2011 paper you would remember this.
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it. ”
It defines the extreme condition after 1 billion years if Earth absorbed solar energy at the current rate AND LOST NONE OF IT!
Since Earth is not a ball of vapourised rock at 800,000K, clearly the planet must be losing heat at about the same rate that heat is absorbed.
Two problems with his nonsense.
1) Energy does NOT stack up, as he indicates.
2) Earth only receives about 1400 W/m^2 max solar. That corresponds to a BB temp of 396K, max.
He doesn’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
CountRy
The 800,000k paragraph makes the point that the Earth takes up heat from the Sun and then loses it again.
Somehow you seem to have missed that point.
Pierrehumbert then spends the rest of the paper discussing the mechanisms by which that heat loss takes place.
I told you why that is nonsense. You get to believe whatever you wish.
ClintR
Thank you for playing the role of Simplicio in our dialogue.
Is that some kind of effeminate insult?
I just tell you the truth about the nonsense you believe. I’m just the messenger. If you’re mad, you should take it out on your cult leaders — the ones that have misled you.
You play the role perfectly!
ClintR
It is no fun debating with someone so ignorant that even the insults have to be explained.
In 1632 Galileo published a book, “The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”.
It was intended to present the Copernican Sun-centred Solar System.
The format was a discussion between three men.
Salviati presented the scientifically correct view.
Sagredo was an intelligent and initially neutral layman.
Simplicio presents the traditional, but erroneous views of the ancient Greeks.
“Yes” is the correct answer.
Can stratospheric ozone transfer heat to the upper troposphere? It seems impossible. Ozone radiates infrared radiation directly into space. This radiation only occurs during ozone production from oxygen.
Ozone that falls into the lower stratosphere does not emit infrared radiation and its temperature is the same as that of the surrounding air. Why does ozone even sink into the upper troposphere? Because the ozone molecule is much heavier than the oxygen and nitrogen molecules.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_nh_f00.png
ren
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg#mw-jump-to-license
The atmosphere absorbs heat at the surface from solar heating, at 50km in the ozone layer and above 100km from the solar wind, giving temperature maxima
It radiates at the tropopause due to CO2 and water vapour causing a temperature minimum.
Since the tropopause is cooler than the ozone layer heat diffuses downwards to the tropopause. but not lower into the warmer troposphere.
Ozone is a well-mixed gas, so it does not sink under its own weight. Ozone in the Ozone layer formed from interaction between oxygen and ultraviolet light. Ozone in the troposphere formed there, from industrial pollution.
Ozone in the lower stratosphere over the polar circle forms blocks.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2020.png
Brief Introduction to Stratospheric Intrusions
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
EM,
The atmosphere radiates at all levels. The usual measurement of this radiation is called temperature. Your comment is nonsensical.
Linking to irrelevant multicoloured graphics Is not helping. Maybe you should learn some real physics, rather than the magical type preferred by climate alarmists.
As Raymond Pierrehumbert wrote * Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation. * No magical heating properties. Insulation is used to prevent cool things warming too quickly, and warm things cooling too quickly. You may not like it, but thats reality. Bye bye.
“The atmosphere radiates at all levels. The usual measurement of this radiation is called temperature. ”
That is thermal radiation, sometimes referred to as black body radiation. In addition greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and water vapour radiate to space from the tropopause.
As Raymond Pierrehumbert wrote * Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation. * No magical heating properties.
No magical heating needed. You go out on a cold day unclothed. Your body makes X amount of heat but loses more. Your body temperature drops.
Put on your insulation, your clothes. You still produce X amount of heat but lose less. Your body temperature rises.
No extra heat has been produced. You are warmer because you are retaining more of the heat you produce.
Carbon dioxide reduces planetary heat loss.The temperature stabilizes when heat in=heat out.
If you add more CO2 the insulation improves, more heat is retained and the temperature rises.
That the atmosphere serves as “insulation” has been debunked numerous times. Low clouds provide some insulation, at night. But clouds are not CO2. A clear sky at night cools the surface rapidly.
The atmosphere is mass that manages heat transfer in accordance with the laws of physics. CO2 is one of the ways thermal energy can be emitted to space. CO2 does NOT heat the surface.
Ozone accumulates over the Bering Sea and from there it travels over North America. This has a major impact on winter circulation at high latitudes.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_toz_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Check out the atmospheric pressure in areas where ozone is dropping.
https://i.ibb.co/7nT1MnF/Screenshot-1.png
Where ozone falls, the atmospheric pressure at the surface increases and the temperature drops sharply.
The question is: what influences ozone accumulation in certain areas at high latitudes?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.png
This is what satellites work for to see the real picture of the atmosphere.
Is Miker still around?
Remember what I said about Spokane, Miker?
Deja vu all over again:
Spokane, Wash – At midnight it became official. October 2020 is the snowiest October on record for #Spokane. That makes back to back snowy Octobers. Although there are 7 days left this month, the odds of adding to the 7.5″ total looks minimal……
Spokane got so cold following Friday’s snowstorm that it shattered a long-standing record.
The record was set in 1978 when the temperature in Spokane dropped to just 19 degrees on the morning of Oct. 26. On Monday morning, that record fell when Spokane International Airport recorded a low of just 14 degrees a few hours after midnight……
Spokane was pummeled with a record-breaking 6.2 inches of snow Friday the most to fall in the city during October leading to slick roads and thousands of residents without power.
– Courtesy of [email protected]
Clovis Weizendanger
14 F == -10 C
This is the top 20 of the TMIN temperatures for October days, measured by those ‘GHCN daily’ stations in Spokane having data till right now (downloaded a few minutes ago):
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2009 10 11 -17.8 (C)
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2009 10 12 -17.7
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2002 10 31 -16.1
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2009 10 10 -15.8
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2019 10 29 -15.5
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2019 10 30 -15.4
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2020 10 25 -15.3
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2020 10 25 -15.0
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2020 10 26 -14.5
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2002 10 30 -13.9
-USW00024157 WA_SPOKANE_INTL_AP____________ 2002 10 31 -13.9
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2020 10 27 -13.1
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2008 10 26 -13.0
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2019 10 30 -12.8
-USW00024157 WA_SPOKANE_INTL_AP____________ 1935 10 31 -12.8
-USW00004136 WA_SPOKANE_17_SSW_____________ 2008 10 12 -12.3
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2006 10 31 -12.2
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2009 10 10 -12.2
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2009 10 12 -12.2
-USC00457941 WA_SPOKANE_WFO________________ 2019 10 29 -12.2
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x (tinyurl’d because of ‘d c’)
Rien de nouveau! As we can see, it was quite a bit colder in 2009… and in 2002, 2019, 2008, 1935, 2006 as well.
-17.8 C == -0.04 F …
*
AND above all: would anybody think that the weather in Spokane could be a valuable hint on some climate cooling?
J.-P. D.
Should read, of course:
This is the top 20 of the ascending sort of the TMIN temperatures…
Bindidon, from the correspondence I had with this fellow a year ago, it appeared that Clovis had this very strange belief that all weather, and perhaps climate, originates in Spokane, Washington and subsequently propagates across the US and eventually manifests itself worldwide.
As they say, truth is stranger than fiction and it appears he may still hold this belief.
Maybe it’s a Brazilian butterfly flapping its wings while flying south for the winter?
“Gordon Robertson says:
December 5, 2020 at 2:21 AM
…You don’t have a shred of scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, to prove trace gases in the atmosphere are warming it.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
If only there existed a document whereby scientists from around the world who have dedicated their whole professional lives to studying this problem could publish quadrennial reports of findings from analysis of data collected specifically for that purpose.
A document with an introduction such as:
“The assessment of observational evidence for climate change is summarized in this section. Substantial advancements in the availability, acquisition, quality and analysis of observational data sets for the atmosphere, land surface, ocean and cryosphere have occurred since the AR4. Many aspects of the climate system are showing evidence of
a changing climate.”
Such a document may run over 1500 pages in length but would be a page turner for the truly interested.
The ignorant fools stuck in an emotional state of denial would be like, https://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/head-in-sand.jpg
This is the problem. How to compare data from previous periods when methods are constantly changing?
tyson snape…”If only there existed a document whereby scientists from around the world who have dedicated their whole professional lives to studying this problem…”
You are still avoiding the question, where is the scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, to support the anthropogenic theory?
Glad you asked.
Here are two lists containing 3000 references for starters.
https://tinyurl.com/Bibliography-Part-I
https://tinyurl.com/Bibliography-Part-II
Be and informed skeptic.
These scientific facts about global warming have been known for at least five decades and are not in dispute:
1.- Human emissions are responsible for the increase in CO2.
2.- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more of it in the atmosphere leads to a warmer planet.
As with any issue in science, there are some things that we know, and some things that are uncertain. While global warming is real and grounded in physics, unknowns remain as to how much warming will occur in the future and what impacts this will have on society.
1) Human emissions of CO2 help supply the need for more plant food, but natural additions swamp human contributions.
2) CO2 absorbs and emits IR, so it is sadly misnamed a “greenhouse gas”. As CO2 emits to space, it effectively cools the planet. Any photons returned to Earth would not be able to raise surface temperatures. CO2 15μ photon corresponds to 193K (-80C, -112F).
As with all cults, belief supersedes reality. While natural variability has caused recent warming, it is unknown when future cooling will occur, or what impacts that cooling will have on society.
As usual, your comments make no sense. Maybe if you provide your references we could read the basis of your arguments directly from the source, in hopes of understanding. You misinterpret and misconstrue what you read. IMHO.
I’m glad you stated that was only your opinion. Everyone has a right to an opinion, right or wrong. But claiming your opinions are reality, when they’re not, is what makes people idiots.
If you could pose a responsible question about anything in my comment you couldn’t understand, I would be glad to respond.
So, no sources?
TYSON MCGUFFIN
ClintR does not like evidence, and when you provide factual evidence he will dismiss it. You will find this poster is not very smart, does not possess logical or rational thought and is mostly disrupting of good rational science based discussion. Like an annoying child that needs to interrupt adult conversation to feel needed. You will find he continues to post regardless and you will also see his posts are simplistic opinions on topics he can’t grasp or understand.
Norman is out trolling again.
And, as usual, he has nothing to offer except insults and perversions of reality.
ClintR
Maybe if you would consider how dumb your physics was and how wrong, you could alter your course. If you were intelligent or thinking you would learn your posts are incredibly stupid physics. Really really stupid. They have zero point, no evidence, your own personal poor interpretations of things you are too ignorant to understand.
You make up stupid physics that no one except Gordon Robertson would believe then say actual physics equations used in engineering are bogus. I really do not know if anyone could say anything that matches your stupid opinioned posts.
Question for you to answer. Will you ever post any evidence to support your horrible opinions or do we just have to endure and suffer through your stupid posts?
This is another classic.
* First Snape puts out false into.
* I correct.
* Snape claims he/she can’t understand.
* I offer to clarify if he/she needs help, if he/she can ask a responsible question.
* Of course Snape can not ask a responsible question.
* Troll Norman interrupts to provide his usual insults and false accusations.
The fun continues with these idiots.
Still no sign of intelligence from the poster going as ClintR.
No evidence, no science, no logic. Just foolish unsupportable opinions.
You are not a smart person.
You are also wrong in your latest post.
HERE: “Troll Norman interrupts to provide his usual insults and false accusations.”
NO FALSE ACCUSATIONS! You are really a stupid person. Too dumb to realize how stupid you actually are. You are just basically annoying.
I would not mind your posts if you were capable of intelligent thought. It is not something you possess.
When you make an idiotic post and are corrected with real physics, you do not thank the person helping you but attack them with your “idiot” bombs.
You will never learn but you will keep annoying people.
* Failing to find any mistakes in my physics, troll Norman continues with his usual insults and false accusations.
The fun continues with these idiots.
ClintR
No sorry but you are posting an incorrect opinion of yours once again. I have posted links to real physics showing just how bad your physics actually is. You ignore evidence and go about with your false and misleading physics.
You falsely claim that IR from a colder object cannot be absorbed by a hotter one. This is false and made up. You offer zero support for this fantasy but you peddle it as if it was established fact, it is not. It is opposite of actual physics, just something contrarians, like you and Gordon, like to make up and pretend it is real physics. You do this often with most issues. Just make up things and hope they stick.
Again real physics (which you do not accept): “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
The real physics and not your fantasy contrarian opinion of how things work.
(Notice each subsequent comment by Norman gets longer and longer. The idiot will abuse his keyboard all day. He has nothing else to do.)
Norman “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. You can not understand that simple reality. You try to find numerous was to twist, distort, spin reality, But you always end up frustrated and angry when I show you how dumb you are.
You are the one that claims fluxes add. You are the one that claims two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube. You have no background in physics, and it shows. And no, you haven’t identified anything wrong with my physics.
Snape, before Norman jumped in to interrupt like an annoying child seeking attention, you were trying to understand my comment. Were you able to come up with a responsible question?
ClintR
Once again you demonstrate your disregard of evidence.
The temperature of the colder object will change the temperature reached by heated hotter object. With the same continuous energy input to the heated hotter object, it will reach a higher temperature if the cold temperature is increased.
Anti-scientist you are and ignoring evidence once again, just for you to ignore. Roy Spencer did a real world experiment for contrarians, like you, that don’t know physics, to end the debate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
It does not matter what evidence is given to you. You ignore it and give your stupid opinions that are based upon nothing.
ClintR
You are wrong. I have, many times, proven your physics is not real. It is only your made up fantasy how you think it works. It is based upon nothing.
Yes fluxes definitely add. You are just wrong with that statement. Many have attempted to educate you, knowledge is not your strong point.
I did not say two ice cubes are hotter than one. That is just a lie you make up. Find any post of mine where I say this. You won’t but you will lie about what I say. I state two ice cubes emit more energy than one.
Two ice cubes (if you supply them with continuous energy to maintain there 0 C temperature) will cause a colder object than themselves to reach a higher temperature than one ice cube would do depending upon view factors and such. If you have two heated ice cubes inside a hollow meter square ball, the ball will achieve a higher temperature than with just one heated ice cube. I doubt you will logically understand how this is. Not that I really care. You’re idiot opinions and made up physics do not mean much to me. I just do not want your infection sickening otherwise healthy minds.
ClintR
Again, I don’t care what you think about me or physics. My goal when I see the terrible contrarian physics you and Gordon Robertson peddle is to clearly show it is bad and wrong and hope that others see it as well. I am not concerned about the people on this blog who have studied real science. Your bogus opinions have no sway over them. I just try to help less educated to know what type of person you and Gordon are so they do not fall for your false physics.
Can I predict these idiots, or what?
“Notice each subsequent comment by Norman gets longer and longer. The idiot will abuse his keyboard all day. He has nothing else to do.”
Norman, the ice cube issue came up with you trying to claim fluxes add, as you are still doing. If you now want to deny that 2 ice cubes do not make something hotter than 1 ice cubes, I will accept that.
Just so there is no confusion, you can answer this simple question:
Can two ice cubes make something hotter than one ice cube?
a) Yes
b) No
Your answer please.
ClintR
It is not a “simple” answer. It is conditional.
Can you understand that? Two ice cubes will warm a colder object (colder than the ice cubes) more than one will be able to depending upon the configuration. If the energy of the second ice cube cannot reach the colder object its addition will cause no change. If, as my example, you have a hollow sphere then the more ice cubes, up to a point, you have the warmer the object will get until it reaches a steady sate temperature with the amount of ice it receives from the ice vs how much it loses via emission.
Wrong Norman, it is a simple question with a simple answer. You can’t answer it because you’re trapped by reality, again.
You want to answer “yes”, but you know that would make you look even stupider. So you have to find some way to pervert reality so that you are answering “yes”, but also not answering “yes”. You are deceiving yourself.
If you answer correctly, “no”, then that destroys your AGW nonsense.
You’re trapped by reality.
ClintR
It is as I have stated correctly. You are not a smart person. You don’t know real physics and you do not possess logical thought. You are very simple minded and are unable to process complex information. (noted by your inability to read more than 10 words per post)
I am not “trapped” by anything. I just am able to think at a deeper level than what you are able.
There is nothing that can change your limited thought process. I can explain it again but you still do not understand what is being stated. Just face reality of yourself. You are not very smart, it will help when you post to people.
Norman, you are trapped in your own nonsense by reality. You can’t answer the simple question.
A second ice cube does not make it hotter than one ice cube. You know that is right. But you can’t answer truthfully because that would destroy your false science that the sky adds to sunlight. You have to deny reality to support your cult beliefs.
That makes you an idiot. And you give no indication you want to change.
Tyson I agree and until data shows otherwise arguments against this will not gain traction.
Entropic man has much to offer . I have to say it. Keep posting.
Salvatore
Maybe you are interested in a comparison of the solar cycles SC24 and SC25, on the basis of the observed 10.7 cm flux, during the respective cycle transition periods:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ls0t2D00ifmPGGsNJVYSDGjgwF-Xz_2B/view
I remember strange predictions for the start of SC25 which would plunge down to unprecedented low levels. Leif Svalgaard always has contradicted such claims.
Source
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
F10.7 is perfectly compatible the Sun Spot Numbers – with the exception that unlike SSN, it keeps during low solar activities a value above zero and hence allows for a more detailed evaluation.
J.-P. D.
Maybe you are interested in the magnetic field strength of the solar wind? The solar wind shows the strength of the solar cycle.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
High galactic radiation, together with La Nia, will cause quite unusual weather anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere this winter.
It is worth seeing the huge high in Eurasia.
https://i.ibb.co/TPN5wjQ/gfs-mslp-wind-asia-1.png
thanks
tyson snape…”These scientific facts about global warming have been known for at least five decades and are not in dispute:
1.- Human emissions are responsible for the increase in CO2.
2.- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more of it in the atmosphere leads to a warmer planet”.
*******
Where is the evidence that human emissions are responsible for warming? All we have to go on are allegations dating back a century or more and that propaganda programmed into climate models.
Where’s the objective one-to-one scientific evidence that relates global warming to anthropogenic gases?
What is a greenhouse gas? The suggestion is that such gases, that can absorb infrared radiation, are acting like a greenhouse. A greenhouse does not warm due to its GHG content, it warms due to all the air being heated by solar radiation via CONDUCTION from soil, etc., and a lack of convection to allow the heated air to escape.
Your theory is sheer pseudo-science, that GHGs making up no more than 1% of the air in a greenhouse can superheat the rest of the air. Not a shred of evidence to support that theory. In fact, if you removed all the CO2 ans water vapour from a greenhouse, it would still warm.
Do you know any physics postgrads in your local university? They love playing with the gear and will be delighted to set up the experiment for you.
E, are you still trying to promote your cult nonsense?
Will you ever learn that reality trumps false beliefs?
You remind me of Cesare Cremonini, who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope in case he saw reality.
You remind me of a clueless person that has never grown up, who refuses to accept reality.
“Where is the evidence that human emissions are responsible for warming?”
Glad you asked.
Here are two lists containing 3000 references for starters.
https://tinyurl.com/Bibliography-Part-I
https://tinyurl.com/Bibliography-Part-II
I hope that you will provide references to your assertions to the contrary although I’m willing to bet none will be forthcoming.
Be forewarned that crackpot websites are not acceptable.
Snape, you need to provide the physics that human emissions are responsible for warming, instead of numerous links to nonsense.
Give us your best link that humans are warming the planet.
Tonto, Give us your best link that humans are NOT warming the planet.
Snape, you’re the one that sucks down nonsense links.
Give us your very best one.
Are you ashamed of your links?
Tonto a.k.a. the clown a.k.a. Simplicio Give us your best link that humans are NOT warming the planet.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Give it up: you never will obtain any valuable link from this guy.
The same happened all the time with a commenter nicknamed ‘JD*Huffman’ who got banned last year, and posted about the same trash, Moon spin denial included.
J.-P. D.
Some more banned aliases:
ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger)
Yes, you guys are right and I should cut ClintR some slack, in the spirit of the season and all that stuff.
But he’s so easily triggered though! I think he needs to go to this link and report back to us… https://i.imgflip.com/e94sv.jpg
It doesn’t matter how many idiots converge to defend the cult.
Where is the best evidence that CO2 can heat the planet?
TM,
Gee. Impressive appeal to authority. 14 references to Michael Mann – loser, liar, scofflaw and deadbeat!
As to Ed Lorenz, you do realise that his work is the reason that the IPCC stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states, dont you?
Maybe you could gain a bit of credibility by pasting a copy of the mythical AGW theory? Or maybe start with a testable GHE hypothesis?
No?
Carry on with your stupid attempts to avoid the science. Nature always wins. The future is unknowable.
Description of the greenhouse effect:
A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Observational determination of the greenhouse effect, Nature v342 14 Dec 1989, pp 758-761
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
S,
A description is pointless. Unicorns have been described – horn, body shape, temperament, etc. Do you believe unicorns exist?
Try to actually follow the scientific method. Where may this greenhouse effect be observed and measured?
What testable hypothesis might be formulated?
Just quoting idle speculation supported by precisely nothing is the mark of the fanatic.
Swenson says:
“Where may this greenhouse effect be observed and measured?”
Here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?
Silly snowflake Svante, you have really stepped in it this time. This is why a wanted Snape to produce his best evidence for the AGW nonsense. He hasn’t responded….
But your link is the biggest pile of garbage I’ve seen in a while. I laughed when he multipled by 17! But then I came to this sentence: “Consequently, (1) + (2) is only a partial measurement of δE caused by rising CO2 and δEtotal must be estimated.”
Did you get that? “…must be estimated.”
Is that idiot a fraud, or just another ignorant snowflake?
Yes, multiplying the 17 years by the yearly trend, very difficult concept.
Fig. 7 shows the symmetry, put a question mark on them if you like, the effect is still there in the measured spectrum.
The “paper” is garbage, snowflake.
You don’t even understand all the flaws. “Measured spectrum” does not mean “CO2 forcing”. You have to separate out solar, and that is not done. You just find something that supports your false beliefs, and you go with it. That ain’t science.
Is that garbage the best you’ve got?
ClintR says:
The measurements were taken at night time to rule out solar influence.
Sun always shines on Earth, snowflake.
What must be done is separate solar energy from CO2, to show any CO2 “forcing”. If that were done correctly, CO2 “forcing” would be zero. Nighttime doesn’t help because solar energy is still involved.
But, reality doesn’t fit into your cult beliefs.
The night side has no solar input sunshine.
Only IR output.
Snowflake, repeat after me, 10,000 times:
“What must be done is separate solar energy from CO2, to show any CO2 “forcing”. If that were done correctly, CO2 “forcing” would be zero. Nighttime doesn’t help because solar energy is still involved.”
How is solar involved at night, my dear sunshine?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-567822
Aha, it went through Earth as X-rays.
The ocean surface temperature in the Nino 4 region has dropped. This means that along the entire equatorial Pacific the temperature is well below the 1981-2010 average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
r
No reason to wonder about your graphs: we are in a (relatively weak) La Nina:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#tabs=Graphs®ion=NINO34
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
But a look at the recent past shows you where we really are:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
There is no chance at all for the 2020/21 edition to reach any of these stronger ones, let alone those in even earlier times:
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
J.-P. D.
The equatorial Pacific produces the most water vapor that is transported from the equator by jet currents to higher latitudes.
A sharp drop in the global temperature of the sea surface.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
ren
Useless blah blah, miles away from what I was telling.
J.-P. D.
I am at the point that the ONLY thing that matters is the data. All the arguments for or against global warming have been made now it is time to watch and see.
Here’s some data:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?
Salvatore
Exactly.
Let me add that worldwide pollution and increase of poverty disturb me by dimensions more than does climate change, regrdless how real and dangerous it might become in the future.
J.-P. D.
SDP,
The data is the starting point. If a thermometer gets hotter, the question might be why.
Magic? Evil alien technology? Additional heat in the vicinity of the thermometer?
Nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by insulating it from sunlight, have they? Maybe GHGs have magical heat amplifying properties, but nobody seems to be able to demonstrate them.
Oh well.
That’s a very good paper. Clearly written with good technique and some discussion of their technique’s strengths and weaknesses. I’m happy to accept their figures.
Now, what do they mean?
The paper quotes the AR5 figure of 0.508 +/-0.102.
My own back-of-the -envelope gives ∆F of 5.35ln(410/373) = 0.506 for CO2 alone, so the AR5 prediction sounds about right.
The article is good news. If the forcing is less than predicted we have more time to something about it.
One caveat.The statistical pedant in me notes that when you include the 95% confidence limits AR5 predict a range from 0.406 to 0.61. The paper has a range of 0.29 to 0.425.
Since the upper limit from the paper and the lower limit from AR5 overlap, there is not a significant difference between the two means. The AR5 prediction has not been falsified.
E, you are a fool. You have no physics to support your false claims.
There is no ΔF from CO2. Your cult has deceived you.
EM,
The paper is rubbish. Radiative forcing is a nonsense term, dreamed up by climate alarmists trying to sound convincing.
The authors assume global warming hypothesis exists, and is based on the fact that CO2, like all matter in the universe, absorbs infrared radiation!
What a complete load of bollocks! CO2 has no heating ability. Thermometers show how hot they are – nothing more, nothing less. They dont measure watts/m2, they indicate degrees of heat.
You are obviously an extremely gullible alarmist. Good for a laugh, but not much else.
“+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land”.
Which, if any, models accurately predict this difference between (tropospheric) land warming and((tropospheric)oceanic warming?
All of them.
The main Earth system heat sinks are the oceans, where the excess heat is absorbed into the bulk.
On land there is no heat sink, excess heat remains on the surface of transfers to the atmosphere.
As a result you would expect surface and troposphere temperatures to increase faster over land than over the oceans.
E, water and air have different heat capacities.
What other science do you need help on?
You made a correct statement. Are you feeling all right?
Feeling fine, fool.
What other help with science do you need?
EM,
You do realise that the Earth is more than 99% molten, dont you?
How does your heat sink nonsense work? Excess heat? What excess heat? What do you think happens at night?
The surface – land, sea, whatever, cools down. Go outside one night. Check for yourself.
Simple fact that you forgot is that the land starts off with a much lower average temperature than the oceans: the oceans (more precisely, their surface layer) are much warmer than the land. Therefore, at the same added forcing the land would warm more than the oceans.
Plus, the oceans have higher heat capacity than the land and therefore should lag behind though i’m not sure if that effect should be large as some people think, because the mixed-layer of the oceans is ‘only’ about 100 times that of the land. Seems large? Yeh, but the heat capacity of the land is such that it lags behind solar forcings by like 2 months, i can suppose that the lag for the oceans should therefore be around 200 months or about 17 years.
As for the bulk ocean, where the heat might be going into, that seems questionable theoretically speaking. The bulk of the oceans is very cold, which would make sense in its temperature is controlled by the temperature of the arctic oceans. As long as there is sea ice, the rest of the deep oceans should remain near zero *C no matter how much surface tropics warm or cool. Unless of course the hot saline water generation in the red and mediterranean seas take over and start warming up the deep oceans, like some fringe theories suggest.
Look at it from the viewpoint of energy.
Since the 19th century ships have been taking temperature depth profiles of the deep ocean. Of late 3000 Argo buoys have been doing the same.
The average ocean temperature has increased over time. Knowing the temperature change, the volume of the oceans and the specific heat of seawater you can calculate the amount of heat added.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-heat
You can see that the ocean heat has increased by 15 * 10^22 Joules in 40 years. That is 3.75 * 10^22 Joules/decade.
Read Salvatore Del Prete’s paper.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
There is an imbalance in Earth’s energy budget. The planet radiates about 0.5W/m^2 less than it receives from the Sun.
Knowing the imbalance, the surface area of the Earth and that 1 Watt is 1 Joule second you can calculate that the Earth is gaining about 4 * 10^22 Joules/decade.
Compare the two figures. About 90% of the energy gained due to global warming has been stored in the oceans while ice melt, land and atmospheric heating account for the rest.
Two things you have overlooked, E.
1) 40 years isn’t long enough for meaningful data.
2) That “energy imbalance” comes from the bogus energy budget. That is, it is also bogus.
EM,
You are talking nonsense again.
Energy from the Sun is insufficient to maintain a temperature above about 255 K. Ask any alarmist.
An object on the Earths surface warmed by the Sun loses that heat at night. The top surface of lakes, hot in summer, may freeze in winter. No heat accumulation.
The Earth has cooled since it was formed. CO2 heats nothing. You are delusional, just like Michael Mann, who imagined himself a Nobel Laureate.
By the way, you do realise that Argo buoys are moving in the current that carries them, dont you? Pretty pointless trying to measure the temperature of water not surrounding the buoy. Delusion.
“Latitudinal libration is caused by the inclination of 6.7° of the Moon’s axis of rotation to a line perpendicular to the lunar orbital plane (Fig. A3.4). Because of this, it is possible to see an additional 6.7° at the north and south poles, over two-week intervals.”
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter03.pdf
I’ve never seen a Merry-go-round where the horses always leaned to the north as they travel around the center. Maybe different forces are at work.
If the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting) and rotating on its own axis, you would see all of sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that the acceleration of gravity from the earth acts equally on all of the edges of the moon and just slightly stronger on the nearest point — very slightly. If so, the centripetal force acts evenly, and there is no rotation except the perceived rotation caused by its orbit.
That’s correct Tim S, Earth cannot produce a torque on Moon.
A perfectly clear and valid point, “Ive never seen a Merry-go-round where the horses always leaned to….”
is answered with a perfectly irrelevant repeat of non-spinner erroneous dogma “you would see all of sides”.
IOW always dodging valid points, by returning to the comfort of declared truths.
This is how the TEAM ‘wins’ the ‘debate’.
“Maybe different forces are at work.”
Sure. Agreed. Because the merry-go-round is only a simple analogy, designed to get a simple point across. It is not meant to capture every nuance of the moon’s motion..
The point I made about rotation is a fact, backed up by sources further upthread, which the Spinners choose to deny. Which is why they lose the debate.
“The point I made about rotation is a fact, backed up by sources further upthread.”
Nope. Not a fact. Makes assumptions that are False, but simply Declared to be True.
“rotating about an external axis (orbiting)”.
“Because the merry-go-round is only a simple analogy, designed to get a simple point across. It is not meant to capture every nuance of the moons motion..”
It gets across the simple point that it is a poor model for the Moon’s motion.
And no better model is offered to replace it.
Yet the model that Astronomy uses and works is dismissed as invalid, without a shred of evidence.
Thats how you lose a debate. Again.
“The point I made about rotation is a fact, backed up by sources further upthread, which the Spinners choose to deny.”
My point is backed up by centuries of astronomical observations.
“In 1693, the astronomer Gian Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) formulated a set of empirical laws that succinctly describe the Moon’s axial rotation. According to these laws:
The Moon spins at a uniform rate that matches its mean orbital rotation rate. The normal to the Moon’s equatorial plane subtends a fixed angle, t=1.59 degrees, with the normal to the ecliptic plane. The normal to the Moon’s equatorial plane, the normal to the Moon’s orbital plane, and the normal to the ecliptic plane, are coplanar vectors that are orientated such that the latter vector lies between the other two.
Law 1 effectively states that the Moon is locked in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance.”
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node76.html
Craig T, you are new to this issue, and have a lot to learn. Sources on the Internet mean nothing because they all have the same cult chant. Cassini was an astrologer. He was completely wrong about Moon. His “laws” are NOT laws of physics. He made them up based on his beliefs. He didn’t understand orbital motion. Very few people did in those days.
Newton proved what orbital motion looked like. He had to invent calculus to do it. Orbital motion is the same motion as a ball on a string. The ball is not rotating about it axis. It is only orbiting.
I’m not new to this issue – I’m amused that this argument is still going on.
The “cult” doesn’t take the word of Cassini or anyone else. Further observations have improved understanding of how the Moon moves. A big leap forward came when laser reflectors were put on the Moon. Changes in the Moon’s orientation are now measured with the accuracy of a few centimeters.
This is from a paper written in 2001:
“For 2 decades the analysis of Lunar Laser Ranging( LLR) data has detected a displacement in the Moon’s precessing pole of rotation indicating energy dissipation. The core orientation is closer to the ecliptic plane than to the mantle. The core does not rotate at the same rate as the mantle, and this causes a longitude offset for the direction of the principal axes.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304622636_Secular_tidal_changes_in_lunar_orbit_and_Earth_rotation
Not only are scientists observing the rotation of the Moon, they can see the effect of the mantle and core rotating at different rates.
Craig T, do you not have anything?
Your “paper” is titled “Secular tidal changes in lunar orbit and Earth rotation”.
That is not even relevant to Moon’s non-existent axial rotation. Are you just trying to throw stuff against the wall, hoping something sticks?
Get back to us when you understand orbital motion. Nothing else matters til that happens.
I do owe you an apology.
I meant to link to this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246734681_Lunar_rotational_dissipation_in_solid_body_and_molten_core
You should still look at “Secular tidal changes in lunar orbit and Earth rotation.” This is from the abstract:
“Small tidal forces in the Earth–Moon system cause detectable changes in the orbit. Tidal energy dissipation causes secular rates in the lunar mean motion n, semimajor axis a, and eccentricity e. Terrestrial dissipation causes most of the tidal change in n and a, but lunar dissipation decreases eccentricity rate. Terrestrial tidal dissipation also slows the rotation of the Earth and increases obliquity.”
Again this study used lunar laser ranging data. The things you deny are true are being observed by scientists.
Now Craig, not only can’t you find a link you understand, but you’re resorting to misrepresenting me. That’s how trolls like Norman, Nate, Svante, and others behave.
Are you wanting to be both an idiot and a troll?
If the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting) and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves. That is just a fact, proven both by the link ftop_t found and by the Madhavi ref. I mentioned. Now, the statement is conditional, if the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting), and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is obviously true, because if you add axial rotation to a movement where the same side of an object is always presented to the Earth, you will end up instead seeing all sides of that object from Earth. All you need is the mental capacity to add two motions together to see that.
“Now, the statement is conditional, if the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting), and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Let’s expand that logic:
If geosynchronous satellites were orbiting the Earth you would see them from all sides of the globe. Since they are always over the same location, geosynchronous satellites don’t orbit the Earth.
Craig T has no option but to misrepresent me.
Craig, what exactly do you object to? An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis, whilst it moves. That is a fact. So you can disagree, but it is like you are disagreeing that 2+2=4.
Then it follows that if an object were rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of it from the center of the orbit. Presumably you are able to mentally add two motions together?
Craig T doesn’t understand how stupid his comment is.
“Craig, what exactly do you object to?”
I object to your assumption that rotating around an external axis in space (orbiting) has any affect on an object besides the path of it’s center of mass.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566719
The number of days with magnetic storms per year indicates the effect of the Sun’s magnetic activity on the Earth’s magnetosphere. You can see a huge decline since 1997 (beginning of the 23rd solar cycle).
https://i.ibb.co/4VndS9w/number-of-days-with-a-ge.jpg
You can “watch and see” all you want or I would call it paralysis by analysis. However, with over 60 years of hard data and ever improving analysis methods, sensible minds are moving ahead.
MANAGING CLIMATE RISK IN THE U.S. FINANCIAL SYSTEM – U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission September 2020.
This reality poses complex risks for the U.S. financial system. Risks include disorderly price adjustments in various asset classes, with possible spillovers into different parts of the financial system, as well as potential disruption of the proper functioning of financial markets.
Financial system stress, in turn, may further exacerbate disruptions in economic activity, for example, by limiting the availability of credit or reducing access to certain financial products, such as hedging instruments and insurance.
Climate risks may also exacerbate financial system vulnerabilities that have little to do with climate change, such as historically high levels of corporate leverage. This is particularly concerning in the short- and medium-term, as the pandemic is likely to leave behind stressed balance sheets, strained government budgets, and depleted household wealth, which, taken together, undermine the resilience of the financial system to future shocks.
The central message of this report is that U.S. financial regulators must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks.
At the same time, the financial community should not simply be reactiveit should provide solutions. Regulators should recognize that the financial system can itself be a catalyst for investments that accelerate economic resilience and the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Financial innovations, in the form of new financial products, services, and technologies, can help the U.S. economy better manage climate risk and help channel more capital into technologies essential for the transition.
TM,
And you appear stupid enough to appeal to the authority of financial forecasters. The financial community have no clue. Thats why they make their money taking yours, hoping you never realise that if they knew what they were doing, they would not have to work for a living.
There are suckers like you born every second, Thank God for that, otherwise all the financial experts would starve to death!
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
“If so, the centripetal force acts evenly, and there is no rotation except the perceived rotation caused by its orbit. ”
There is a force. The orbital velocity of the Moon is the velocity of its centre.
The surface nearest Earth is travelling slower than its orbital distance requires, so tends to drop towards the Earth.
The surface furthest from the Earth is travelling slightly faster than its orbital distance requires, so tends to move outwards.
The result is a tension stretching the Moon along the Earth-Moon axis, making it slightly oval.The
This has implications. If a moon gets too close to its planet the tension becomes larger than the strength of the moon. The inner and outer surfaces go in completely different orbits and the moon tears apart. This minimum distance is the Roche Limit.
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/r/Roche_limit.htm
That’s probably why there’s so much tea in China.
It does continue to amaze me how the moon discussion keeps re-turning.
People are free to define words however they want. However, scientists have refined various definitions to be broadly useful. There are usually good reasons for the definitions that are used.
For example, “orbit” for gravitationally bound astronomical objects could be defined in various ways. Two contenders that have been put forward in this discussion are:
1) the path of a point (the center of gravity) moving thru space. Any rotation of the orbiting object is a separate motion, measured relative to an inertial frame (eg relative to the ‘fixed stars’).
2) the path of an object moving through space, with one point always facing a specified direction. Any rotation of the orbiting object is a separate motion, measured relative the specified direction.
Definition (1) has numerous advantages.
a) it is simpler (motion of a point vs oriented motion of an object)
b) orbital angular momentum is constant (as noted by Newton himself).
c) rotational angular momentum is also constant in this definition. The moon is observed to rotate at a fixed rate relative to the stars.
Definition (2) has numerous disadvantages.
a) there is no ‘specified direction’ that works for elliptical orbits. There is no point on a “non-rotating moon” that will always face directly toward the earth. Libration happens. Nor could you find a point that always faces the barycenter, nor that faces forward along the orbit, not that faces the center of the ellipse, nor that faces one focus.
b) this definition uses a rotating reference frame (which rotates at varying rates for elliptical orbits). Any time you introduce rotating frames of reference, the calculations get massively more complicated. Working is inertial reference frames is almost always better.
Anyone advocating for definition (2) needs to be able to explain the observed uniform rotation of the moon *relative to the stars* but NOT *relative to the earth-moon direction*.
Tim, scroll up to the very top of the thread, and read through the discussion there. Pay close attention to the contributions from ftop_t. When you are ready to acknowledge that the following statement is true, then let me know:
If the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting) and rotating on its own axis, you would see all of sides of the moon from Earth.
Until you can accept that the above statement is true, do not bother responding to me.
Tim is back making up definitions to fit his made-up physics!
If a body has angular speed relative to its center of mass, it is “rotating about its axis”, it has “axial rotation”. Zero angular speed indicates the body is NOT rotating about its axis.
A clear example is a ball on a string, swung in circles. The ball has ZERO axial rotation. If it had axial rotation, the string would wrap about the ball.
Its the same basic motion as Moon, orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis.
tim…”Definition (1) has numerous advantages.
a) it is simpler (motion of a point vs oriented motion of an object)
b) orbital angular momentum is constant (as noted by Newton himself).
c) rotational angular momentum is also constant in this definition. The moon is observed to rotate at a fixed rate relative to the stars”.
****
Rotate about what? It is revolving around the Earth, although some like to call that a rotation. It is certainly not rotating about its own axis wrt the stars. It is facing in different directions in its orbit wrt the stars but that can be explained easily as a product of its orbital path constraints since all points on the Moon are revolving around the Earth in parallel paths. That rules out rotation about a local axis.
If Newton said that he was wrong. There is no angular momentum, the Moon has only a linear, tangential momentum and its orbital velocity varies with the eccentricity of the orbit. At any instant of the orbital path, the Moon does have constant linear, tangential velocity but that velocity is constantly being bent into the orbital path by gravity.
The resultant orbital path is a relationship between that constant tangential velocity and Earth’s gravity. As you pointed out in the past, an eccentric orbital path affects the orbiting body. I agreed with you and replied with a reason: the gravitational force varies slightly at various parts of an elliptical orbit, giving the Moon’s linear momentum more effect. Therefore it speeds up slightly IN THE ORBITAL PATH.
Kepler accounted for that with his observation that a radial line connecting an orbiting body with the Sun covers equal areas in equal times. That would not be possible if the Moon’s ‘angular’ velocity did not change slightly in an ellipse.
I know it sounds crazy that the Moon could have a constant tangential velocity and a varying orbital velocity but look at the vectors. One vector points at the Earth, and is caused by gravity. The other vector representing the Moon’s tangential velocity is at right-angles. The resultant vector is the orbital path at any one instant. If any one of those right-angled vectors changes in length, the orbital vector must change in both direction and magnitude.
Since the Moon’s tangential velocity is constant, that means the gravity vector must change, and it does. In a purely circular orbit, the radial line from the Earth’s centre to the Moon’s centre always points at the Earth’s centre. Furthermore it carves out equal areas in equal times as it moves around the orbit, as per Kepler.
In an ellipse, that radial line’s axis is calculated differently. It’s direction is found by bisecting the angle formed by the lines from each ellipse focal point to the Moon. Therefore the radial line will point slightly away from Earth’s centre and the force of gravity acting on the Moon will be a sine or cosine component of the full gravitational force.
That component will vary slightly itself with the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit. allowing the effect of the Moon’s constant tangential velocity to have a greater effect, hence the egg-shaped of the elliptical orbit away from the focal point occupied by the Earth.
tim…”2) the path of an object moving through space, with one point always facing a specified direction. Any rotation of the orbiting object is a separate motion, measured relative the specified direction”.
Not on this planet, not in this universe. Any body moving through space is measured wrt the Earth as the centre of the universe. We know Earth is not the centre of the universe but we build a celestial sphere with the Earth as its centre. N,S, E and W are defined accorcing to the Earth as centre of the universe and wrt the Equatorial plane.
Tim…you are dodging the obvious, the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. Based on our own inertial frame with the Earth at 0,0,0, the Moon orbits the Earth at about 5 degrees above and below the Earth’s orbital plane. It cannot rotate on a local axis because it is confined to having the same face always pointed at the Earth. That means all points on the Moon are constrained to move in concentric circles, ruling out any local rotation.
What you are referencing is the constantly changing directions the lunar near face points wrt the stars. I have already pointed out that a jetliner orbiting the Earth at constant velocity at 35,000 feet does exactly the same without rotating about it COG.
Another one bites the dust, and gets inertial reference frames wrong.
“Until you can accept that the above statement is true, do not bother responding to me.”
Hilarious. Again returning to the erroneous central dogma, when anyone makes a clear logical counterargument.
And then add in some schoolyard bullying. Say uncle! Tell me Im right (even if Im not) or dont speak!
This is how the TEAM ‘wins’ a ‘debate’.
Tim:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566403
“Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.”
TRUE
“That is just a fact, proven both by the link ftop_t found and by the Madhavi ref. I mentioned. Now, the statement is conditional, if the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting)”
Right there is the sleight of hand. State something true, then sneak in something FALSE, and maybe nobody will notice.
Rotating about an external axis NOT equivalent to ORBITING. No matter how many times you try to declare it so.
The main reason why you lose this debate is that you NEVER point out what is wrong with the standard Astronomy model of the Moon’s motion. The one that actually is able to explain all of the properties of the Moon’s orbit.
You provide no evidence that it fails to match the observable motion of the Moon. In fact some of the observations you actually need to DENY (Moon has Poles).
You want us to simply accept the alternative model. But that model, you freely admit, is not a real model, just a ‘simple analogy’. And it fails to explain all the features of the Moon’s motion.
You expect us have faith that if you COULD show us the real model that it WOULD explain all.
But no such real model is presented.
Thus, you oddly expect people to want to switch from a model that works, to one that doesnt work, and is really just a simple analogy.
Sorry, in a real debate, that is not a winning argument.
This isn’t a “real debate”. This exercise is to expose idiots so that others can see how bad their science is.
True, but the question is who are the idiots?
It’s an issue of Newtonian motion. Gravity pulls on the center of mass of an object. If that is the only acting force a falling object won’t rotate.
Have someone drop a non-rotating object from a 100 foot tower while you watch at 50 feet below. You will see the bottom of the object before it reaches you, the side when the object is 50 feet from the ground, and the top after it passes you.
Any orbiting body is “falling” toward the Earth while traveling perpendicular to the force of gravity. The perpendicular speed is fast enough that the object never hits the Earth. Without rotation it would stay aligned in a fixed frame of reference independent of Earth in the same way as the object falling from the tower.
Of course there are always multiple forces acting on anything. Gravity from the Sun and planets tug at objects in space. Anything in space tumbles unless stabilized by rotation.
The idiots are the ones that attempt to deny reality by coming up with irrelevant, distracting examples that are both funny and pathetic.
Got any more examples?
“This isnt a ‘real debate’.
True the debate was over 300 y ago. You didnt win. Now all you can do is rant on the internet.
Wrong again, Nate.
Newton discovered what orbital motion was. That established Moon was NOT rotating about its axis. A few years later, Cassini made up his “beliefs”, which are wrong.
Astrology went with Cassini, and his mistakes haven’t been corrected, to this day.
It doesn’t matter to astronauts landing on Moon, because the bogus lunar axial rotation isn’t happening. Something that isn’t happening doesn’t affect anything.
The amazing thing is the effort idiots will go to to protect a false science.
“Wrong again, Nate.
Newton discovered what orbital motion was. That established Moon was NOT rotating about its axis. ”
We have all seen by now his exact quotes from his book stating that the moon is rotating on its axis.
Just stop LYING about what Newton said, TROLL.
“A few years later, Cassini made up his ‘beliefs’, which are wrong.”
False. We’ll add it the growing list of physics laws and principles that you deny, TROLL.
Radiative Heat Transfer Law.
First Law of Thermo
Kirchoffs Law
Addition of fluxes.
Cant add force and momentum vectors.
.
.
Cassini’s Laws
Like Norman, troll Nate cannot link to anything that verifies his false accusations.
He’s just trolling. That’s all they do.
Tim!? Where have you gone? When you get back, don’t forget that orbiting, or revolution, is just another word for a rotation about an external axis.
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.”
That “definition” assumes a circular path. The moon does not follow a circular path. Therefore the definition is inadequate for the discussion at hand for general elliptical orbits.
in fact, the author goes on to say: “Orbit is more precise and is the motion that can be calculated using the masses, gravity, and the distance between the orbiting bodies.”
You can calculate the PATH using using the masses, gravity, and the distance (and initial velocity). But you cannot calculate the ORIENTATION of the body from these factors — there is no way to calculate that the earth rotates once every 23hr 56 min simply by knowing that the earth orbits once every 265.24 days. No way to calculate that the moon rotates one every 27.3 days.
Nice try, but a careful reading of the article you yourself presented says you are wrong.
And he again cherry picks a source, until it conforms to his desires.
Missed this:
“Two other terms used in science are rotation and revolution. They do NOT MEAN the same thing”
“The strict definition of rotation is ‘the circular movement of an object about a point in space.’
This FAILS for any elliptical orbit. IT FAILS for the Moon.
So for the 47th time:
‘Rotating about an external axis’ and ‘Orbiting’ are NOT EQUIVALENT.
Thus “If the moon were rotating about an external axis (orbiting) and rotating on its own axis, you would see all of sides of the moon from Earth.”
Is FALSE because it has a FALSE PREMISE built into it.
“That “definition” assumes a circular path.”
Why are you putting “definition” in scare quotes? It is a definition, and it does not anywhere state that it only applies to circular orbits. You are just making things up in order to reject what you don’t want to accept.
Try this one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
“The strict definition of rotation is ‘the circular movement of an object about a point in space.’
Nobody is making that up.
You believe it doesnt apply to orbits. That is made up.
Just stop making things up.
As you can see, Tim, they refer to the movement of the Earth around the sun as an example of a rotation around a completely external axis. That’s an elliptical orbit.
DREMT, this line of argument makes no logical sense.
This is a fact. Astronomy and physics from at least the time of Newton has understood and described the motion of the Moon as an elliptical orbit around the Earth, and a rotation around its own axis.
You are trying to claim that Astronomy’s definition of ‘orbit’ agrees with you..but you already know very well, and have admitted many times, that Astronomy does not agree with you.
They do not agree with you that an ORBIT is defined such that orientation to the center is maintained.
There is simply no point for you to try to have it both ways.
Nate, there is no evidence that you understand orbital motion, or physics, or reality, so this is just for someone that does.
The ball on a string, swung in a circle, is basic orbital motion. One side of the ball always faces the center of the circle. In celestial orbital motion, it is quite common for the orbits to be not a perfect circle. The orbits are elliptical, and can vary in eccentricity. In a elliptical orbit, the vectors acting on the body are changing. And such changes result in something called “libration”.
So even though it appears Moon is not always facing the exact center of its orbit, it is always moving in such a way to face in the general direction. Again, it depends on the eccentricity but the average around the orbit reveals the tendency to keep one side facing the center.
“always moving in such a way to face in the general direction”
Means it’s not facing in the right direction, my dear sunshine.
General direction is fine.
For a simpleton who doesn’t want to model observations of the Moon.
No, for a complexington that understands the difference between an analogy and a model.
“The ball on a string, swung in a circle, is basic orbital motion. One side of the ball always faces the center of the circle. In celestial orbital motion, it is quite common for the orbits to be not a perfect circle. The orbits are elliptical, and can vary in eccentricity. In a elliptical orbit, the vectors acting on the body are changing. And such changes result in something called ‘libration’.”
Get with the program, Clint. The TEAM is now promoting ‘rigorous mathematical models’ like FTOPs.
The TEAM now understands that non-spinner analogies are not rigorous models, and don’t explain libration or axial tilt, etc.
While the ‘general plane motion models’ of Madhavi, ie the Spinner model, is a rigorous mathematical model that can explain all of these orbital features.
That is why astronomy and engineering uses the spinner model for orbits and spacecraft trajectories, because analogies are of no use to them.
Svante, ever noticed how in astronomy, they refer to the "orbital axis" – well, if orbital motion is supposedly just a translation of the center of mass in an ellipse, a la general plane motion…there wouldn’t be an "orbital axis", because an axis is a property of rotation, not translation…
“Svante, ever noticed how in astronomy, they refer to the “orbital axis”
‘Look a squirrel’ will get you nowhere.
Also often referred to as “Normal to the orbital plane”
…not to mention these definitions, which refer to orbiting/revolution as a rotation about an external axis, rather than a translation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566724
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566801
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“No, for a complexington that understands the difference between an analogy and a model.”
OK, your simpleton model is fine for you, but it’s a complete failure for an astronomer.
Just as well it isn’t a model, but just an analogy.
“…not to mention these definitions, which refer to orbiting/revolution as a rotation about an external axis, rather than a translation:”
Nope. As discussed, cant claim Astronomy agrees with you. You have already admitted they don’t.
You are at a dead end and repeating yourself.
Nate and Svante are such idiots they’re still arguing the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
You can’t help stupid.
Its quite simple.
What is the actual orientation of the moon as a function of time?
* Does one side always face exactly toward the earth? (rotating at varying rates relative to the stars)
* Does one side always face ‘forward’ along the direction of motion? (rotating at some *different* varying rates relative to the stars)
* Does one side always face ‘the center’ of the ellipse? (rotating at yet some other varying rates relative to the stars)
* Does the moon rotate at a fixed rate relative to the stars?
Its not a debate. These four options give measurably different answers. Only one is the actual, measured orientation as a function of time.
Tim, you appear to have simply ignored every word anybody said to you. I guess the discussion has to be on your terms, as usual.
“Does the moon rotate at a fixed rate relative to the stars?”
The Spinners mistake a change of orientation “relative to the stars” for axial rotation. So you could actually write this option in a Non-Spinner-friendly way:
Does the moon change its orientation relative to the stars at a fixed rate?
Now you no longer have an argument.
Sure — use your words. “Does the moon change its orientation relative to the stars at a fixed rate?”
The answer is “yes”. The stars move across the moon’s sky at a fixed rate of 2pi/27.3 radians per day.
“Does the moon change its orientation relative to the earth at a fixed rate?”
The answer is “no”. The moon has its highest angular speed when it is closest to the earth and lowest when farthest.
The two are different rates. The moon’s orientation wrt to the stars (ie its rotation about its own axis) is independent of its rate of motion around the earth (ie it orbit).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566812
Tim doesn’t know what orbital motion looks like. So he just makes things up. He’s a creative writer with no clue about the motions involved.
(He’s especially good at writing sci-fi.)
Tim, I believe, has a PhD in Physics and has taught Astronomy. Correct me if Im wrong, Tim.
Given that, plus his his always clear and accurate posts on this topic, I think it is much more likely that:
He does know “what orbital motion looks like”
He doesnt “just makes things up”
And he is not “a creative writer with no clue about the motions involved.”
But if we apply Svante’s rule about ClintRs posts: that he says the OPPOSITE of what is actually true, then all makes sense.
Nate, you have stated your belief that Tim Folkerts has a PhD in physics. That’s hard to believe with all the mistakes he’s made here in the last 6 months, or so.
Maybe you could provide verification, since all you seem to have is a fascination with “authority”.
(Remember, Folkerts is the one that “taught” us two ice cubes can make something hotter than one ice cube!)
Yes, Clint, google him.
And go get your dusty physics textbooks out of the attic.
I found a “Tim Folkerts” that is custodian of a minor league planetarium at a minor league junior college in Kansas. Is that him?
“Tim Folkerts has a PhD in physics.” Yes or No?
For a janitor, does that mean “Pretty handy @ Dusting”?
Loser troll. Just stop ad-homs that you cant back up
Check out the times I’ve corrected “Folkerts” physics. He’s so ignorant of the issues he’s probably an imposter!
The “authority” you are worshiping is very likely an imposter. We see that so often in cults.
And DREMT simply ignores every word anybody says, in order to ‘win’ the ‘debate’.
“Does the moon change its orientation relative to the stars at a fixed rate?”
Yes.
Does the line connecting the Moon to the external axis change its orientation relative to the stars at a fixed rate?
No.
That SHOULD tell you that the two MOON motions, rotation, and orbiting are not a SINGLE MOTION that you want to call ‘ORBITING’.
They are two INDEPENDENT motions.
“Now you no longer have an argument.”
…because nobody is denying that the moon moves as it does in its orbit. It is just one single motion, in which the orientation of the moon relative to the stars changes at a constant rate, whilst the orbital speed varies.
” It is just one single motion”
Declared truth. Denies the mathematical reality that MORE PRAMETERS are needed to describe the Moons motion, than a simple elliptical orbit requires.
Not only does that the Moon changes its orientation relative to the fixed stars at a fixed rate, but it also does so around a TILTED axis.
A tilted axis CANNOT be one in the same as the orbital axis.
There must be TWO axes involved.
Moon’s orbit is tilted from Earth’s, troll Nate.
Yes, and its rotational axis is tilted wrt to a normal to its orbital plane. Ie its obliquity is 6.7 degrees.
It doesn’t have a “rotational axis” because it has no axial rotation.
Ok, if so, then what is its obliquity?
What does its obliquity = 6.7 degrees mean to you?
Are you going to claim it doesnt exist??
Moon’s orbit is slanted, relative to Earth’s. The amount is believed to be a little over 5°. Anything else is by “definition” (nonsense), as Moon is not rotating about its axis.
…and don’t forget, Tim, if the moon were rotating about two axes (rotating about an external axis as well as about its own center of mass) we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about rotation.
Hmmm, as a matter of fact we do see more that a hemisphere..
“we would see all sides of the moon from Earth”
…by which I mean, we would see 100% of the moon’s surface from Earth.
“we would see all sides of the moon from Earth”
Loopily returning to circular logic over and over again.
If your BELEIF is that the Moon is only orbiting, then “we would see all sides of the Moon” if it were ALSO rotating.
So sorry but you cannot use that as EVIDENCE that the Moon is only orbiting since that is part of the PREMISE.
Do you understand basic logic?
Do you understand the structure of Proofs?
It seems you do not.
“That is just a fact about rotation.”
Because, If an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves, then an object that is rotating about an external axis and rotating about its own center of mass must present all sides to that axis whilst it moves. All that is required is the ability to mentally add the two motions together.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-565995
Of course all of this has been demonstrated with actual measurements.
The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and 431:
1.- The lunar dynamical model includes interaction between the rotation of the fluid core and the mantle.
2.- The effect of this interaction is clearly seen in Lunar Laser Ranging data and characterizes a damping in the differential rotation between the core and mantle.
3.- The orientation of the lunar exterior (mantle and crust, hereafter referred to by mantle) is parameterized by Euler angles that relate the Moon-centered, rotating lunar mantle to the inertial frame.
4.- The Moon’s second-degree gravity field is time varying due to distortion by tides and spin.
5.- The mantle coordinate system is defined by the principal axes of the undistorted mantle in which the moment of inertia matrix of the undistorted mantle is diagonal.
6.- The directions of the principal axes are derived from analysis of Lunar Laser Ranging data.
7.- The Euler angles that define the rotation from the principal axis frame to the inertial frame are: the angle from the X-axis of the inertial frame along the X-Y plane to the intersection of the mantle equator; the inclination of the mantle equator from the inertial X-Y plane; and the longitude from the intersection of the inertial X-Y plane with the mantle equator along the mantle equator to the prime meridian.
It is very straight forward.
https://tinyurl.com/solar-system-bodies
Yes Snape, Moon is orbiting, without axial rotation.
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
tyson snape…”The lunar dynamical model includes interaction between the rotation of the fluid core and the mantle”.
A model??? So some idiot programmed a model incorrectly.
There is nothing in your statements that proves the mantle is rotating about the core, only a suggestion, with no scientific proof, that the core is rotating.
I surmise from your comment that you did not review the data from the GRAIL experiment, and would even suggest that you have no idea what Gravimetry Geophysics is about. I’m not surprised.
The Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory, or GRAIL, mission was designed to create the most accurate gravitational map of the moon to date, which when combined with topographic data, can provide insight into the moon’s internal structure, composition and evolution.
Using the technique pioneered by NASA’s Grace mission orbiting Earth, GRAIL mapped the moon’s gravity by measuring the push and pull between twin spacecraft(Ebb & Flow) flying in tandem around the moon. The spacecraft collected data on the moon’s far side by communicating with one another when the signal to Earth is obscured. It was the first time such a technique has ever been attempted on another world.
Yes Snape, gravity exists.
But this endeavor debunked another myth. Some idiots believe an orbit is sustained by gravity alone. But once the rocket fuel of the satellites was turned off, they crashed into the lunar surface. No tangential vector, no orbit.
Reality wins again.
“But once the rocket fuel of the satellites was turned off, they crashed into the lunar surface.”
From NASA:
“Ebb and Flow, the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission probes, are being sent purposely into the lunar surface because their low orbit and low fuel levels preclude further scientific operations.”
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-396&cid=release_2012-396
The GRAIL satellites crashed because the remaining fuel was used to get them out of orbit.
Wow Craig, I think you just made the “Idiot List”.
I assume all of the scientist that do research that contradicts your opinion are on that list. I’m probably not worthy of such honor.
Anyone that believes, and supports, the absolute nonsense we see here, is NOT a “scientist”.
Want some examples:
* Two ice cubes can make something warmer than just one ice cube.
* A wooden horse on a merry-go-round is rotating about its axis.
* Orbital motion is caused by gravity only.
* 160 W/m^2 can turn into 640 W/m^2.
The list goes on and on, but that’s enough for now.
PRATT!
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
Yes, Svante, we have refuted all your points a thousand times, yet you still keep making them.
tyson snape…”If so, the centripetal force acts evenly, and there is no rotation except the perceived rotation caused by its orbit.
…entropic>>>There is a force. The orbital velocity of the Moon is the velocity of its centre.”
The quote immediately above from Entropic is from the URL you provide. He equates a force to an orbital velocity but the only possible force related to orbital motion of the Moon is its linear momentum, and it is in a tangential direction, not in the resultant orbital direction.
Why don’t you spinners give up with the obfuscations and look at the actual dynamics involved?
“the only possible force related to orbital motion of the Moon is its linear momentum”
Gravity?
e…”the only possible force related to orbital motion of the Moon is its linear momentum
Gravity?”
You quoted me out of context. I was referring to quote FROM entropic, cited by tyson snape, who was comparing a force to a velocity.
Force = mass * acceleration
When you apply a force to a mass the mass acelerates.
Acceleration is a change in velocity.
Gordon,
The “dynamics”, or the cause of the moon’s rotation does not matter. It’s movement can be described via kinematics, a subject you are clueless about, since you STILL don’t know what curvilinear translation is.
skeptic…”The dynamics, or the cause of the moons rotation does not matter. Its movement can be described via kinematics, a subject you are clueless about, since you STILL dont know what curvilinear translation is”.
Like Norman, you are fond of delving into textbooks for your definitions. I am trained as an engineer to work out problems using devices like kinematics and to think for myself.
Curvilinear translation is nothing more than rectilinear translation applied to a curve. The textbook you have quoted offer a myopic definition of curvilinear translation that can be applied only to bizarre concoctions like a ferris wheel gondola and a bus with the its wheels removed and attached to rotating levers.
Curvilinear translation has a much broader definition. It has to be applicable to a rigid body moving under its own power on a curve.
There comes a time when you need to use your own brain. What kind of device could operate on Earth using the strict definition of rectilinear translation? The definition requires sliding a body along a horizontal surface since any form of rotation is not allowed. That means any vehicle with rotating tires is not allowed, so how does rectilinear translation apply to most forms of transportation, or even movement?
A human walking from one point to another on a tangential plane cannot perform rectilinear translation since his legs are not moving along parallel lines at the same velocity.
You are far to immature to take part in this kind of discussion since you are hung up on definitions created by an authority figure that make no sense. You lack the courage to look for yourself to see what is really meant by rectilinear and curvilinear translation.
There is no point having a definition for either if they are constrained to examples that make no sense. Obviously an automobile body is performing rectilinear translation even though it is moved by rotating devices. It says nothing about that in the definition, however, therefore textbook junkies like yourself are stuck.
What possible good is curvilinear translation if it applies only to a ferris wheel gondola. Use your effing brain for cripes sake. Curvilinear translation is the same motion as rectilinear translation except it is on a curve. So, ask yourself what they have in common?
If you have a sled being pulled through snow on a level surface by dogs, obviously it is performing rectilinear translation by definition. What happens if the dogs reach a curved surface along the way? Does all translation end? The points and/or lines on the sled are no longer moving parallel to their initial position and the direction of those lines and points are now changing.
What do you call that kind of translation? It is translation and it is on a curve. Do I have to spell it out for you or are you going to rush off to another textbook to see if you can find an explanation?
Gordon shrieks:
“I am trained as an engineer to work out problems using devices like kinematics and to think for myself.”
LMAO. “Thinking for yourself” does not mean you reinvent kinematic definitions.
Gordon moans:
“Curvilinear translation is nothing more than rectilinear translation applied to a curve.”
That is absolutely TRUE! But an object undergoing ANY type of translation will NOT change its orientation. That is where you mess up. Every kinematic reference source in the world disagrees with you!!! The moon is constantly changing its orientation.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-linearkinematicsi-130214143930-phpapp02/95/2-linear-kinematics-i-7-638.jpg?cb=1360852858
Gordon cries:
“That means any vehicle with rotating tires is not allowed, so how does rectilinear translation apply to most forms of transportation, or even movement?”
WTF are you talking about??? Gordon, you are seriously confused. When did I ever say rotation is not allowed?? Rotation is not allowed in a translating object. A tire rotates, but that is not curvilinear translation. OMG you are DUMB. The car body exhibits rectilinear translation. The tires are rotating around their axes. What is the problem?? You are confusing curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation. Not all curvilinear motion is curvilinear translation.
Gordon moans:
“Obviously an automobile body is performing rectilinear translation even though it is moved by rotating devices. It says nothing about that in the definition, however, therefore textbook junkies like yourself are stuck.”
Your brain is stuck. The automobile body does perform rectilinear translation, but the tires are merely rotating about their own axis, but that is not curvilinear translation. Get it, Einstein? If an automobile negotiates a curve, that is no longer rectilinear translation. That is rotation about an axis, NOT curvilinear translation. Is this sinking in???
Gordon squeals:
“Curvilinear translation is the same motion as rectilinear translation except it is on a curve. So, ask yourself what they have in common?”
Easy. They BOTH maintain the same orientation, meaning the body cannot rotate at all. The body can still follow a curve, but the orientation remains the same throughout. With both cases, every point in the body has the same velocity. With both cases, every line within the body remains pointing in the same direction throughout the motion.
Gordon snorts:
“If you have a sled being pulled through snow on a level surface by dogs, obviously it is performing rectilinear translation by definition. What happens if the dogs reach a curved surface along the way? Does all translation end?”
Yes, all translation ends when negotiating a curve, because as you state the points and/or lines on the sled are no longer moving parallel to their initial position. They go into rotation mode. So what are you complaining about? If the sled was being pulled by a human, and they entered a vertical curve, the human would remain upright which would technically be curvilinear translation, but the sled would be rotating about an axis.
Gordon whimpers:
“What do you call that kind of translation? It is translation and it is on a curve.”
No it is not translation. Translation along a curve requires the object to point in the same direction, and that is not happening with the sled. It’s just rotation, and the velocity is now tangent to the curve.
YOU need to rush to a textbook, because you are hopeless confused regarding the simple concept of translation, especially curvilinear translation.
I think if anyone is shrieking, and moaning, and crying, and squealing, and snorting, and whimpering, it is SGW. He needs to chill out a bit.
Gordon,
How did the license exams go?
“I am trained as an engineer to work out problems using devices like kinematics and to think for myself.”
We can assume that, eons ago, Gordon was trained with…..textbooks, as are all engineers today.
Odd that he now dismisses them.
tyson snape…”Glad you asked.”
Still waiting for proof. Do you lack the scientific ability to explain how a trace gas making up 0.04% of atmospheric gases can cause significant warming, never mind catastrophic warming?
Based on the Ideal Gas Law, a gas making up 0.04% of a gaseous mix could create no more warming than its mass percent, which is around 0.04 C.
There’s a figure based on real science, let’s see what you have for proof.
You have a lot of studying to do!
https://ibb.co/ykh4ZFc
To further demonstrate the weakness of your approach to this issue consider the case of Ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone concentration is no higher than about 12 ppm in the stratosphere yet it shields the surface of the Earth from harmful UV radiation.
So paraphrasing your own question, “Do you lack the scientific ability to explain how a trace gas making up 0.0012% of atmospheric gases can” literally be the reason we are able to exist here on Earth?
Snape, atmospheric oxygen is over 200,000 ppm.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
The typical behavior of an ignorant denialist we can see in the first answer to your comment…
He didn’t even understand what you were talking about.
J.-P. D.
tyson snape…”Ozone concentration is no higher than about 12 ppm in the stratosphere yet it shields the surface of the Earth from harmful UV radiation”.
That’s a good question, why are you not challenging it? We were fed that propaganda as an excuse to ban fluorides in gases yet decades after the ban was imposed another hole opened up over the other Pole.
Same with DDT. It was banned because it was supposed to be interfering with the eggshells of raptors. Decades later we have learned the eggs are still compromised and were compromised long before DDT came into widespread use.
That’s partly why I am a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming. There are too many do-gooders trying to change the world drastically based on essentially no scientific evidence. When you corner them they claim it is better to err on the side of caution or they whine about their children. One politician in Canada claimed the science does not matter, it is the priniciple.
In other words, they have a belief system about the environment and they have latched onto a pseudo-scientific explanation to support it.
Gordon Robertson a.k.a. Mr. Creosote https://tinyurl.com/Monsieur-Creosote
That is the wrong answer and it only shows how misinformed you are.
The correct answer is that Ozone has the property of efficiently absorbing UV radiation with wavelengths between 0.24 and about 0.31 microns and as a result most radiation from the Sun having wavelengths shorter than about 0.32 microns never reaches the Earth’s surface. Another trace gas, CO2, has the property of being an efficient absorber in the Thermal IR portion of the spectrum thus making it a GHG.
My whole theory on climate comes down to how, why and what could cause earth’s albedo to increase.
How could albedo increase?
I come up with an increase in all volcanic activity(especially if significant),increase in global cloud cover, global snow cover, sea ice cover.
Next what could cause/promote those items to increase?
I come up with a weakening earth magnetic field, and overall weak solar activity but within overall weakness occasional brief burst of strong activity from time to time.
Why is this of consequence to the climate
Because as a result of the above(weakening magnetic field/solar weak with burst of activity ) they can change the atmospheric circulation patterns, intensity of galactic cosmic rays*(muons),which in turn could cause an increase in cloud cover, snow cover, sea ice cover, volcanic activity, and hence you come full cycle with an increase in albedo /lower temperatures.
It is not that complicated ,but the question is does a weakening geo magnetic field/ combined with weak overall solar activity with burst of activity from time to time translate to what I suggest?
Don’t really know. Maybe time will tell.
Will the eastern high attack Europe? He is very strong.
Let’s take a look at the Jetstream Forecast.
https://i.ibb.co/4FMJRcb/hgt300.png
Industrial pollution does a good job of increasing albedo.
You can download a paper on pollution and albedo here.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0004698174900043
The problem with Svenmark’s hypothesis is that the cosmic ray effect exists, but experimental work has produced no evidence that it is strong enough to significantly affect climate.
https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10343
Absolute proof that a horse running on a circular track rotates on its own axis one time per every lap of the track:
We will use the figure and equations shown at the bottom of page 3 in the following kinematic reference, which indicates 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:
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 in the figure with a horse. Point A will be at the horse’s center of mass, and Point “B” will be on far side edge of the horse.
To make the problem easy to calculate, we will use convenient numbers:
r1 = radius from origin “O” to center of mass of horse = 100 m
Width of horse = 2 m (he’s fat)
angular velocity of horse around track = 1 rad/min CCW
rB/A = 1 m (see diagram)
Per the equations shown in the diagram:
Equation 1: V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A)
Our contention is the horse rotates on its own axis at the same angular velocity as it’s angular velocity around the track. Let’s see if the numbers work, and solve the above equation.
V(A) = wr1 = (1 rad/min)100 m = 100 m/min
V(B/A) = wrB/A = (1 rad/min)1 m = 1 m/min.
Therefore: V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A) = 100 m/min + 1 m/min = 101 m/min
Now let’s calculate V(B) without using Equation 1. We will use the standard tangential velocity equation: V = wr
V(B) = wr = (1 rad/min)101 m = 101 m/min (check)
This proves our supposition that the horse rotates on its own axis at the rate of 1 rad/min, which is the same angular velocity as the horse runs around the track.
Here is an explanation. The center of mass of the horse has a velocity of 100 m/min in the CCW direction. But the tangential velocity of the outside edge of the horse at Point B wrt its center of mass is 1 m/min CCW. So you have to add that relative velocity to the velocity of the horse’s center of mass to come up with 101 m/min for V(B), the outside edge of the horse. (check)
The numbers all check out, proving the horse running a circular track 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.
This same type proof can be used for the ball whirling around on a string and for a simplified model of the moon as well.
Let me know if you see any math errors.
By your logic, you could take any point on a record that is playing on a record player and claim it is actually rotating about that point instead of the center. The moon rotates about the center of mass of the earth/moon system, not its own center of mass. Period.
Tim,
It was not my logic. I just used standard kinematic equations for general plane motion and solved the problem.
You, on the other hand just make unsupported declarations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566302
This has been explained to SGW before. His logic is twisted. He gives the horse/ball, angular speed, ω = 1 rad/sec. He has the object spinning, then he says “See, it’s spinning”!
He needs to work his equation with ω = 0. Then he might see his error.
If w was “0” for the horse about its own axis, the problem would not be solved correctly. The tangential velocity of the outside edge of the horse at point B wrt its center of mass would then be zero as well, which would mean the velocity of the the horse’s center of mass and the velocity at point B would be the same value of 100 m/min (essentially the horse would be translating curvilinearly.) But we already know that the velocity of point B using the general equation for tangential velocity, equals 101 m/min. So using w=0 for the horse wrt its center of mass results in an incorrect velocity calculation.
According to SGW, a small chalk circle drawn onto a rotating platform (towards the outside edge), is rotating on its own axis, rather than merely rotating about the center of the platform! What a clown.
A horse does not translate when negotiating a circular track. For example, if the horse was facing west at the starting line at the Noon position of a clock (up being north), he would have to face west the whole race if w for the horse about its own axis was zero. But the horse rotates about its own axis 1 time per orbit of the track, and he thankfully can face in the tangent direction to the race track the whole time.
And I ran the numbers for w=0 for the horse relative to its center of mass, and the results were that V(B) equals 100 m/min using “equation 1”, and 101 m/min for V(B) using the general tangential velocity formula. 100 does not equal 101, so the w equal “0” assumption is wrong.
skeptic…”A horse does not translate when negotiating a circular track.”
Let’s make it an oval track with two straight portions. According to you, when the horse runs along the straight sections he is performing rectilinear translation but when he reaches a curved portion he stops translating, which means he stops changing position.
You’re still confused by the motions involved, SGW.
If the object is not rotating about its axis, the object’s angular speed is ZERO. You are trying to use the mathematical construct of the object’s orbital angular speed for the axial rotational angular speed of the object.
You don’t understand Kinematics, and Kinematics isn’t even the best science to use here. Orbital motion is its own field, but Kinetics is closer than Kinematics because orbital motion MUST reflect the resultant of vectors.
“It should be noted that kinematics is not concerned with why things move; that question is addressed in mechanics by the introduction of forces, which induce accelerations. In kinematics, we are only concerned with position and its first derivative, velocity.”
[https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf]
I realize you are really not familiar with kinematics, since your comments indicate a gross misunderstanding.
And you continue to redefine terms like “orbit”
The horse running a circular track is a simple kinematic problem which I solved in accordance with the equations involved using all the correct parameters.
The figure I used did not show the vector addition symbols, but if you want vectors, look at “Figure 5.1.15: Decomposition of the absolute velocity of point A” in the following reference. It’s the same thing, just the points are labeled differently:
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
Sorry you are confused all the time.
I agree with that quote about Kinematics. Let me add some emphasis to help you understand it:
“It should be noted that kinematics is not concerned with why things move; that question is addressed in mechanics by the introduction of forces, which induce accelerations. In kinematics, we are only concerned with position and its first derivative, velocity.”
Kinematics does not provide for the change in direction due to the resultant of vectors.
The why or how does not matter. All we are concerned with is position and velocity. We don’t care about forces resulting from mass and acceleration. That’s kinetics.
I don’t need to know the tension in the string for a ball whirling in a circular path to describe its motion with the kinematic equations for position and velocity.
So far you have come up with nothing to counter my solution to either the ball on a string or the horse running in a circle problem.
I am sorry for your confusion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566368
“Kinematics, branch of physics and a subdivision of classical mechanics concerned with the geometrically possible motion of a body or system of bodies without consideration of the forces involved (i.e., causes and effects of the motions). …”
Of course Kinematics includes accelerations, since the may be a property of a motion.
Eg a projectiles motion is described with kinematics, as Galileo first did.
Kinematics does NOT describe orbital motion. The definition of Kinematics is correct. Your interpretation of that definition is flawed, like many of your false beliefs.
It was suggested to use w= 0 for the angular velocity of the horse about its center of mass. I will now do that formally:
Once again, refer to bottom figure of page 3 for the following kinematic reference:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
The velocity equation was:
V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A)
V(A)= wr1 = (1 rad/min)100 m = 100 m/min
V(B/A) = wrB/A = (0 rad/min)1 m = 0 m/min.
Therefore,
V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A) = 100 m/min + 0 = 100 m/min
We will now calculate V(B) using the general tangential velocity formula:
V(B) = wr = (1 rad/min)101 m = 101 m/min
Since 101 m/min does not equal 100 m/min, the assumed value of w= 0 for the angular velocity of the horse about its center of mass is not correct.
As I already mentioned SGW, Kinematics fails to describe orbital motion.
Let’s try something. Do you understand that the ball on a string is a model of pure orbital motion?
An orbit is a path, and in the case of the horse running the track, it’s a simple circle. That’s all. The horse is running in a circle. That’s not rocket science. It’s a standard kinematic problem. There is nothing special I need to know.
Same with the ball on the string. The ball performs revolutions about a circle.
Let’s try to stay on topic.
That confirms what we’ve been telling you — you don’t understand orbital motion.
The ball on a string is a simple model of orbital motion. The string simulates gravity, and the orbit is the resultant of the vectors. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the ball’s center of mass.
As I stated. You make up definitions to suit your incorrect view.
The horse is simply running in a circle. That is an enormously simple kinematic problem which I solved using the correct velocity equations and the correct data. And I solved the for the velocity of point “B” independently and got the same answer confirming that the horse does rotate on its own axis while running a lap of the track.
The ball on a string problem I solved earlier as well. I don’t need to know the tension in the string to solve for position and velocity vectors of the ball. You don’t seem to get that, like you don’t get many other things as well. The ball follows a simple circular path. The kinematic equations for its motion are easy to solve.
Clint snorts:
“All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the ball’s center of mass.”
Either provide the calcs or ST**. Go back to the thread where I performed the ball on a string calculations and provide your calculations. You keep making all these stupid claims but don’t back anything up. You can’t be taken seriously.
According to SGW, a small chalk circle drawn onto a rotating platform (towards the outside edge), is rotating on its own axis, rather than merely rotating about the center of the platform! What a clown.
SGW,
Your calculations are not fit for purpose. For example, your calculations purport to show that a wind turbine blade is rotating about an internal axis. Nope. It has one fixed point of attachment, at one end the axis rotation is external – just like the Moon, which constantly falls towards the Earth, under the influence of the force of gravity.
A sphere falling towards Earth does not rotate due to gravity. Nor does the Moon.
Have a good lie down. When you clear your head, tell me why you think Sir Isaac Newton got gravity and his Laws of Motion wrong. Chortle!
Swenson,
I did not perform any calcs for a wind turbine blade. You must be hallucinating.
I did perform a calc upthread for a ball whirling on a string with the same type of results, indicating the ball does rotate on its own axis once per orbit.
Last month I posted a video of an astronaut in space whirling a ball on a string. When he released the ball, the ball was spinning on its own axis. The reason? It was spinning on its own axis prior to release (Newtons first law of motion). My calculations for the ball on string problem merely confirmed this.
I know this is upsetting to our in-house non-spinner cult. And to decrease your anxiety, I suggest a few beers, or maybe some weed, or both, if it is legal in your state.
SGW, you are the one hallucinating. The ball on a string is NOT rotating on its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around the ball. You are using the wrong science for orbital motion. Orbital motion does not fit with Kinematics. You found a definition for “Kinematics”, but you do not understand it.
You can’t think for yourself. You can figure things out. You are excessively opinionated to the point of denying reality.
1) Learn what orbital motion means.
2) Memorize the quote you found about Kinematics. Often memorization helps with understanding.
3) Get a ball and string and do some actual experiments to learn the ball cannot rotate on its axis without the string wrapping around the ball.
When you complete all 3 things, get back to us.
SGW,
The tip of the turbine blade is moving faster than the root. I am glad to hear that your calculations bear no relation to the Moon, based on the fact that the linear velocity of the distal part of the Moon apparently exceeds that of of its closest point.
Completely irrelevant of course.
All your talk of calculating balls is, of course, bollocks.
The Moon obeys Newtons Laws. It falls. The face of the Moon we see is the underneath of the falling object. And from the Moon, the body it is falling towards remains firmly beneath it. You cannot calculate fantasy into fact – although alarmists claim models are superior to reality, at times.
Clint squeals like a girl:
“All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the ball’s center of mass!”
Still waiting on your calculations, Einstein.
“All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the balls center of mass.”
OMG. ClintR super genius!
SGW, have you learned what orbital motion is?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566516
Nate, thanks but I stand on the shoulders of giants. I can’t take any credit for the work of others. Just like other informed skeptics, I think for myself.
SGW,
logic, references, calculations, and proofs!
That won’t work, elegant though it may be.
Much more rigorous than my attempts.
It won’t work, because at the top of the thread, ftop_t has proven that e.g. the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation. Not two, as you erroneously believe.
Sorry, no he didn’t, all he showed was that he was confused about whether or nor an axis rotates.
They are just imaginary lines that things rotate around, they don’t rotate.
He hasn’t proved that a ball on a string is only rotating on one axis, maybe he should try and disprove SGW’s method.
You certainly don’t understand what SGW has done.
He proved that a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. Deal with it.
These clowns are delusional. All ftop_t did was go to a “math is fun” website. Wow! What a rigorous proof!! LMAO. Then he made declarations.
And they take themselves seriously???
Wrong, as always:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
F-Troop did not prove anything. All he did was make declarations and assumptions.
Every kinematic reference states something to the effect that “the general motion of a rigid body of mass m consists of a translation of the center of mass with velocity Vcm and a rotation about the center of mass with angular velocity wcm. This disagrees with F-troop’s declarations.
Plus I proved that the ball on a string and horse running a circular track rotate on their own axis using kinematic equations.
I even assumed that the horse running a circular track did not rotate on its own axis as the cultists suggest, but the velocity calculations showed errors, proving that assumption was wrong.
You are wrong. Not every motion should be broken down into a translation and a rotation. You have been making this same mistake for about two years now. A ball on a string is just rotating, about an axis that is external to the ball. There is no axis of rotation in the ball itself.
Only one?
When it is possible for an object to rotate around an infinite number of external axes.
And by the way, did you check ftop_t’s work for math errors?
I find that he is incompetent in the task of moving a triangle at the three points (1,2), (3,1), and (2,-1) so that it is centered at the origin.
He should have gotten a different point than the origin, depending on which center of a circle he was looking for.
And actually all he proved was that a rotation about an internal axis plus a rotation about an external axis equals a rotation about an external axis plus a rotation about an internal axis.
In other words he proved a + b = b + a
Not a stunning development.
F-Troop moans:
“To model the moon, Point A should always be closest”
No. To model the moon, you represent the moon with circles on a graph and analyze it’s position at selected time intervals.
All he proved is what a BS artist he is.
bob, an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves. Even people on your own side of the debate realize that this is true:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
DREMPT,
Would it surprise you that I would take the works of Newton and Cassini, or the proofs provided by SGW over the opinions of anonymous posters?
The Moon rotates on its axis.
Get over it.
It is just a fact about rotation, bob. Newton and Cassini wouldn’t have disagreed. SGW’s “proofs” are about a translation of the center of mass plus axial rotation. They are not about rotation of the object around an external axis.
An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves. As demonstrated by the link ftop_t found, the transmographer, the Madhavi text, and ftop_t’s proof.
Newton got it right, Cassini got it wrong.
Newton knew what “orbital motion” was. He discovered it. Orbital motion is like a ball on a string. The ball orbits, but does NOT rotate about its axis.
ClintR squeals like a girl:
“All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the ball’s center of mass!”
Still waiting on the calculations, Einstein. You simply cannot be taken seriously anymore.
(Who takes a flat earther seriously anyway?)
I proved there are two axes of rotation for the ball whirling on the string. One being the ball’s orbit about the origin “O” (that’s a given), and the second being a rotation about the ball’s center of mass at Point A.
As a reminder, the string was 8 m long, the ball 2 m in diameter, and the angular velocity of the ball’s orbit was a given 1 rad/s CCW. Point A was at the ball’s center of mass, Point B was on the far side edge of the ball, and Point C was at the near side edge of ball.
The calculation results were as follows:
V(B) = 10 m/s
V(A) = 9 m/s
V(C) = 8 m/s
V(B/A) = 1 m/s
Spin angular velocity of ball = 1 rad/s
All the above numbers check out. The above data also indicates the string does not wrap around the ball because the end of string velocity is 8 m/s, which is the same as the velocity for the near side edge of the ball at Point C.
Please show me any conflicts with the results of the calculation.
Lol.
Yup DREMT, until SGW does his homework, he’s just another trolling idiot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566516
Thanks for finding no errors in my calculations.
The error is that you are applying a translation and a rotation, and calling it two rotations. There is only one axis of rotation with the ball on a string. Even with your way of looking at it!
Thanks for not finding any errors in the numbers. The numbers confirm the ball is rotating on its own axis at 1 rad/s. All the velocity calculations agree with each other.
I know its frustrating for you clowns to be on the losing end all the time.
#2
The error is that you are applying a translation and a rotation, and calling it two rotations. There is only one axis of rotation with the ball on a string. Even with your way of looking at it!
The COM (Point A) of the ball has a given orbital angular velocity of 1 rad/s. That means there’s an axis of rotation about the orbit point “O”. The other axis of rotation is about the COM of the ball. I had to use both axes of rotation in my calculations.
1+1=2
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
#3
The error is that you are applying a translation and a rotation, and calling it two rotations. There is only one axis of rotation with the ball on a string. Even with your way of looking at it!
tyson snape…”Absolute proof that a horse running on a circular track rotates on its own axis one time per every lap of the track:”
In engineering classes were were taught to do a visual inspection first by drawing a freebody diagram. A horse running an oval track has a velocity vector through his body, nose to tail, pointed down the straightaway. If he is running CCW, his left side always points to the centre of the track. therefore you can include a vector for a particle on his LHS in parallel with the one through his COG. You can add a third vector to represent a particle on his rhs.
Now you have three parallel vectors moving down the straightaway. When he reaches the curve, he uses his hooves to turn himself (and the 3 vectors) slightly so all three vectors are tangential to the curve. That turning process occurs through the entire curve till he emerges onto the other straightaway.
If you draw a radial line from an axis point for the curve through the horse, at all times the three vectors are moving perpendicular to the radial line. That means the far side cannot rotate about the COG to become the near side as would be required with local rotation.
That’s all you need to see, all the math in the world cannot contradict that real-world fact. It is not possible for the side of the horse facing the inside of the track to rotate so it is on the outside of the horse as would be required for rotation about its COG.
I did not order this wordsalad. Thanks, but no thanks.
Gordon moans:
“That means the far side cannot rotate about the COG to become the near side as would be required with local rotation.”
Your statement is simply false. You once again make up your own definition of what comprises rotation. The rotation in this problem is easily measured wrt the X’-Y’-Z’ reference frame. The position vector rB/A makes a 360 degree rotation about A for every lap the horse makes. And my calculations using the velocity equations for the general motion of a rigid body confirm the rotation.
Your ignorance is on display. You don’t use a free-body diagram for this type of problem. In engineering, a free body diagram is a graphical illustration used to visualize the applied forces, moments, and resulting reactions on a body. We don’t have any forces and moments to analyze with this problem.
To better visualize this, get a toy horse and pierce it with a toothpick or nail from the top through its center of gravity. Now grasp the toothpick between your fingers and perform a quarter lap around an imaginary circular track CCW. In order to keep the left side of the horse always facing the center of the track, you HAVE to keep spinning the toothpick between your fingers CCW as the horse makes the 1/4 lap. You will have spun the horse 90 degrees about its own axis. If the horse did not rotate about its own axis, it would be in translation mode, and be running forward sideways, backwards and forwards again around the circular track, i.e. it would always be facing the same direction, which would be virtually impossible.
I did the proof. Deal with it.
And why are you lecturing me on kinematics when you can’t even grasp the simple concept of curvilinear translation?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566660
The La-Nina january peak forecast has fizzled considerably, however a secondary decline has just appeared at the end of the forecast range
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
whaddaya think of that
I think because solar activity is growing very slowly, so will La Niña. Therefore La Niña may take longer than a year.
“All international climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate the current La Niña will likely persist until at least February 2021. Most climate models reach their peak in December, with some peaking in January. Six of eight models indicate thresholds will still be met in March, although all six show central Pacific sea surface temperatures much declined from their summer peak.
While some models indicate that the current La Niña could possibly reach similar strength to the La Niña of 2010–12, La Niña conditions are currently weaker than at the same point in 2010. Sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific are the coolest since the end of the La Niña event in 2012, but they are not as cool as during spring or early summer 2010.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20201124.archive.shtml#tabs=Pacyfik
Now the surface temperature has risen a little, but is fairly constant below the surface.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202012.gif
My Question is about the ‘Great Conjunction’ billed to show up 21 Dec 2020.
I’m not sure if the ‘Great Conjunction’ is all about how Jupiter and Saturn appear in the same spot in the sky as seen from earth or if it refers to Sun Jupiter Saturn in line.
The question comes after watching a video where it is claimed the ‘Great Conjunction’ that happens every 800 years or so is somehow responsible for altering the suns activity making it go retrograde around the barycenter and triggers a mini ice age.
It seems to me there is nothing different going on from any other time Jupiter passes Saturn in their orbits around the sun.
Anyone out there want to get off the orbiting/rotating moon discourse?
Ken, this 2020 Great Conjunction does not involve the Sun. It’s just the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn, as seen from Earth.
You’re correct, this one is not significantly different from other Saturn/Jupiter alignments. You have to remember that a lot of astronomy contains carryovers from astrology. In early astrology, they got many things wrong, and some have never been corrected. “Retrograde” is confusing because the word is used for different observations. “Retrograde” is used to describe both the apparent “loops” planets make during orbits, and the reverse rotation of a planet relative to Sun.
You have to be very careful about things you hear from modern astronomy. The “Moon rotation” issue is just one example of a false concept that has never been corrected.
Ken
Yes, this endless skirmish centred around minuscule details like curvilinear translation, ball-on-a-string pseudoscience, coupled with permanent denigration of real science, is incredibly boring.
You seem to have found your hint at aceage.info, a blog I suspect to enhance everything what can be related to a cooling of our planet.
I couldn’t find anywhere else a clear hint to this sun retrograde story, neither on Wikipedia, nor in the conjunction article visible on the NYT. Even WUWT didn’t!
Thank you nevertheless: searching for hints let me zoom into an interesting article I had never seen before:
The Little Ice Age signature in a 700-year high-resolution chironomid record of summer temperatures in the Central Eastern Alps (2018)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-018-4555-y
Kinda Austria/Switzerland/Italy conjunction!
J.-P. D.
JD, your “denigration of real science” is not boring. It’s instructive. It shows how far people are willing to go to pervert reality.
They even go as far as to look like idiots….
At least I solved a kinematic equation of motion (ball on string), whereas you posted a reference to some lamebrain article? Wow! How many brain cells did that take??
SGW, Kinematics does not give you correct results for “orbital motion”. That’s why your results are invalid.
The video Eben linked to uses a “ball-on-a-string” as a correct model of orbital motion (about 6:30).
https://youtu.be/bn64kiu_zR4
Ken:
Conjunctions between these two planets occur regularly and are spaced out by about 20 years (calculations below), nothing else is special about them from the Astronomical perspective. But it is fair to say that this conjunction is exceptional in that the planets appear very close to one another in the sky. In the interval from 0 CE to 3000 CE, only seven Jupiter/Saturn conjunctions were/will be closer than this one. The last time the two planets appeared this close to one another and were observable (i.e. not in the Sun’s glare) was on the morning of March 4, 1226, back when the Notre Dame Cathedral was first being built.
A conjunction is when two objects line up as observed from the Sun. If we mark 0 degrees longitude as the vector from the direction where the Sun appears when viewed from Earth on the first day of spring and suppose Jupiter and Saturn line up at 0 degrees longitude, how long would it take for them to line up again? Jupiter has an orbital period of 11.86 years (0.083092 degrees per day) and Saturn’s period is 29.46 years (0.033463 degrees per day), so on average Jupiter is constantly picking up 0.0496284 degrees on Saturn every day and after 360/0.0496284 = 7253.91 days, or about 20 years, the planets will align again. Of course for Earth based observers the planets’ alignment will look different depending on where Earth is in its orbit around the Sun at the time of conjunction.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
And now… you could start answering Ken’s question.
J.-P. D.
Answered, succinctly and clearly:
“nothing else is special about them from the Astronomical perspective”
capisce!
TYSON MCGUFFIN
” Answered, succinctly and clearly ”
If you say so, Sah…
J.-P. D.
Should there be more? He’s obviously asking about a myth.
“Anyone out there want to get off the orbiting/rotating moon discourse?”
Sure. Jupiter has 8 tidally locked moons and Saturn has sixteen. All of them rotate on their axis one time during one orbit of their planet, so that the same side of the moon faces the planet.
Incorrect Craig T.
If you only see one side of a moon from center of orbit, then the moon is ONLY orbiting. That’s what orbital motion looks like.
And “tidal locking” is nonsense. Maybe you missed this:
“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 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:
“Whats 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.
So dropping a hammer and feather on the Moon shows that there is no tidal effect caused by gravity? So what is pulling the ocean up and down every day?
Just like an idiot troll, Craig T tries to distort reality.
The subject is “tidal locking”, not “tides”. Don’t learn the difference, learning might take you too close to reality.
All that long boring rant by Clint and he STILL has not provided “instantaneous velocity” calculations for the near and far side of the moon, nor for the ball on a string.
Tidal forces cause tidal locking. The Moon’s pull does not only act on the center of the Earth, it pulls across the Earth’s surface. Oceans have tides because water across the hemisphere feels the effect of the Moon’s gravity.
At the same time the Earth’s gravity is pulling across the Moon’s side facing the Earth. You quoted someone above who explained how tidal forces cause tidal locking quite well.
You should go talk to someone that has studied this instead of setting alone and making assumptions on how the universe works.
Vnear = Vfar = Vcom
All points of Moon have the same instantaneous (incremental) velocity.
Craig, Moon pulls on oceans. It does NOT produce a torque on oceans. Just as Earth does NOT produce a torque on Moon.
Idiots can understand simple things like this.
“Moon pulls on oceans. It does NOT produce a torque on oceans. Just as Earth does NOT produce a torque on Moon.”
Read a book you frigging idiot!
Except this trolling idiot.
He can’t understand anything.
Clint squeals like a 10 year old girl:
All points of Moon have the same instantaneous (incremental) velocity!
Still no calculations?
Read a book you frigging idiot!
Clint does. It’s called:
Dr. Seuss’ There’s No Place Like Space: All About Our Solar System Book
That’s where he gets his science.
https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9780679891154_p3_v3_s550x406.jpg
“The tidal component of the secular acceleration of the Moons longitude is a fundamental parameter of the evolution of the Earth-Moon system. The tidal dissipation is due to a misalignment of the tidal bulge of the Earth relative to the Earth-Moon direction. This bulge exerts a secular torque and most of the effect comes from the ocean tides. It produces a secular negative acceleration of the Moon and a decrease in the Earths rotation rate (increase of the length of day). A consequence of the negative acceleration in the lunar longitude of approximately −25.800/cy^2 is the well-known displacement of the Moons barycenter that corresponds to an increase of the Earth-Moon distance of 3.8 cm/year.”
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2002/20/aa2201.pdf
The paper goes on to report on Lunar Laser Ranging observations that fine tune our understanding of tidal torque.
“Idiots can understand simple things like this.”
Others research what is known to see what observations show is actually true.
The Internet is an infinite resource. Not everything on the Internet is valid. So idiots can always find things they don’t understand but believe support their nonsense.
Here is the thing if you have La Nina conditions being the rule moving forward and an increase in major volcanic activity the climate is going to cool.
Global warmest will say temporary .
The counter to that is if you have El Nino conditions the rule and limited major volcanic activity which has been the case over the last decade you will have warming.
Global coolest will say temporary.
So the verdict is far from being decided.
If major volcanic activity is tied to low solar/weakening geo magnetic field then the cooling argument is real and correct.
To jump to a conclusion that AGW is correct because the global temperature trend has been on a slight upward trend is very foolish at this stage of the game.
One last not if you take the period of 1998- now according to satellite data we have not really warmed much, but if you go back further yes we have warmed.
Time will tell.
Salvatore Del Prete
“To jump to a conclusion that AGW is correct because the global temperature trend has been on a slight upward trend is very foolish at this stage of the game. ”
The AGW hypothesis does not just predict that global temperature will rise by 0.2C +/- 0.2C/decade. It predicts a number of other changes, testable by observation and measurement.
I put this partial list upthread, in case you missed it.
Shrinking upper atmosphere
Cooling upper atmosphere
Rising tropopause
Less outgoing longwave radiation
More downwelling longwave radiation
Increasing ocean heat content
Energy conserved
More fossil fuel carbon in atmosphere
More fossil fuel carbon in ocean
More fossil fuel carbon in biomass
Less oxygen in atmosphere
Winters warming faster than Summers
Nights warming faster than days
Poles warming faster than Equator
All have been observed.
I can’t say you are wrong because you are not. The question is do these trends continue moving forward? One would think they would and if that is the case the global temperature trend will be overall up.
We will have to see, but that data does lend much support to global warming you can’t fight it.
So your right and presenting it this way makes a very strong case because your backing it up with factual data.
Thank you.
Entropic man let me ask you some questions.
Could you see those data points changing despite CO2 rising or do you think they are locked into each other? What could change them if you do see something?
In the past when CO2 concentration were rising with global temperatures it did not go on forever. Something stopped it ,for if it didn’t we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect.
Is there some factor that will stop it this time or is this time different? What stopped it in the past? Was it CO2 concentrations through nature reversing , and this time that will not happen due to man ?
What do you think?
Santa’s video has already made my first point.
In the past climate and CO2 have been modified by a number of factors. They include plate tectonics, the arrangement of continents, orbital cycles, solar insolation and volcanoes.
All the natural factors are small at present, and added together they would be expected to cool us by 0.002C/decade.
The AGW hypothesis predicts that we will warm by about 0.2C/decade. Since we are warming by about 0.2C/decade and none of the forcing factors are currently in play it is reasonable to infer that CO2 is causing the warming.
“Could you see those data points changing despite CO2 rising or do you think they are locked into each other? What could change them if you do see something? ”
Except for small adjustments to correct technical errors, I can’t see why UAH or any other past data would change. The patterns you see in 20th/21st century measurements are real.
The current trend looks likely to continue. We continue to release CO2 at an accelerating rate and none of the natural factors are due to change on historical timescales.
“In the past when CO2 concentration were rising with global temperatures it did not go on forever. Something stopped it ,for if it didnt we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect. ”
In the past temperature has changed due to other factors and CO2 usually followed it up or down as an amplifying feedback. When the forcing factor reached its maximum temperatures and CO2 stabilised. There are are few examples like the Permean extinction, snowball Earths and the PETM where increasing CO2 drove increasing temperatures, but usually temperature drives CO2.
We are probably a billion years from a runaway greenhouse effect. Research the Komabayasi-Ingersoll limit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi-Ingersoll_limit
“Is there some factor that will stop it this time or is this time different? ”
This time CO2 is increasing artificially, mostly because we are burning fossil fuels. I don’t see it stopping until we change our behaviour, run out of fossil fuels of some other factor like a nuclear war collapses our civilization.
None of the natural factors look likely to make much difference, except perhaps a supervolcano eruption like Yellowstone. Even another Maunder Minimum would only cool us by 0.3C
“Energy conserved?”
Have you ever read the Trenberth paper on the so called global energy budget, more specifically the diagram presented?
There is only one energy source in the diagram, which would be the sun. Now add all down arrows for energy striking the earth: 161+23+333= 517 W/m2.
Doesn’t that seem odd when the incoming solar radiation is only 341 W/m2?
It’s not new energy, just existing energy being recycled.
Think of a whirlpool in a river. It’s not new water, just existing water going round and round.
There is no rule saying that the recycled flow cannot be larger than the incoming flow. All thermodynamics requires is that the incoming flow from the Sun and the outgoing flow to space are similar.
Thanks for admitting you don’t understand thermodynamics, E.
(Of course it was already obvious.)
Salvatore, you can forget about volcanoes:
https://youtu.be/Sme8WQ4Wb5w?t=126
So if correct then what factors caused the Little Ice Age? Something caused the earth to cool.
SVANTE – what do think it was, if not solar/volcanic in nature?
PAGES2K and the other proxy datasets you dislike show that the Holocene Optimum ended about 5000 years ago and we then cooled by about 1C up to 1900. That is 0.002C cooling per decade.Cause? Orbital changes moving us off the interglacial sweet spot.
The Mediaeval Warm Period shows as a flattening of the graph from about 950 to 1250 followed by a return to the downward trend of the Little Ice Age. There is a cold blip around 1650-1700.
Since the MAP only requires 0.002C/decade warming to stop the cooling a small reduction in volcanic activity would probably be enough.
Similarly a small increase in volcanism would be enough to end it.
For the LIA the existing cooling might be enough. The 1650-1700 blip coincides with the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged solar minimum which would drop temperatures by an extra 0.3C.
In summary, existing natural processes can explain the MWP and LIA. Neither is going to produce a ” magic” warming mechanism to replace AGW.
I think your argument is good because it is based on data. Time will tell for sure. Have to see where we go from here but as this trend continues the more likely it looks to be correct.
All those items you listed are warming effects. Can’t argue it.
I have to agree with Entropic man as much as I don’t want to. You have the data.
I’ve been following the climate debate since the early 1970s, when I was using peat bogs to measure last temperatures.
Early on, there were a lot of gaps in the story, plenty of room for argument.
Nowadays the evidence is much clearer and the gaps are disappearing. It is much harder to make an objective case against AGW.
Of course, it doesn’t stop people trying, but the arguments are becoming less scientific and more political.
E, Earth is experiencing a warming trend. This warming trend started back with the Little Ice Age.
But there is NO proof that warming is caused by humans– none, nada, zilch.
In your cult belief, you BELIEVE the science is settled. So give us your proof. What is the very best science you’ve got proving CO2 can warm Earth?
(Twisted, perverted beliefs don’t count.)
I don’t agree volcanos cause cooling how long depends on the location, size of the explosion and composition of the ash, along with duration of the explosion.
So he is in a word- wrong.
“One last note if you take the period of 1998- now according to satellite data we have not really warmed much”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2020/every/plot/uah6/from:1998/to/trend
0.3C in two decades from UAH, 0.15C per decade.
That is not much smaller than the 0.18C/decade from the surface data.
trend is up no question
The actual trend there is 0.12 C/decade (+/- 0.14)
So it is 0.24C over two decades, and this trend is not statistically significant.
Using only those data, one could not say with statistical certainty that the trend is up, but using all the data one probably could determine that the trend is upwards from 1998.
This is true for a number of temperature datasets. Over one decade, or perhaps two, the observed temperature trend is not statistically significant because the internal variation is similar to the trend.
One reason why the scientists prefer to measure climate trends over thirty years.
cor – NOTE
So for now you have to go with the warming trends and the reasons behind them.
If they stay then this warming theory is going to be correct. So the data will tell us as we move forward.
You can’t fight the data forever.
Etropic man makes his argument and it is strong
I put this partial list upthread, in case you missed it.
Shrinking upper atmosphere
Cooling upper atmosphere
Rising tropopause
Less outgoing longwave radiation
More downwelling longwave radiation
Increasing ocean heat content
Energy conserved
More fossil fuel carbon in atmosphere
More fossil fuel carbon in ocean
More fossil fuel carbon in biomass
Less oxygen in atmosphere
Winters warming faster than Summers
Nights warming faster than days
Poles warming faster than Equator
All have been observed.
salvatore…”All have been observed.”
Where??? And by whom???
That is from entropic man
Upthread, E tried the same tactic. He claimed this list was supported by physics. I just picked 3 from his list and asked for the “physics”:
Less outgoing longwave radiation
More downwelling longwave radiation
Increasing ocean heat content
He came up with NOTHING.
I gave you scientific papers which you ignored.
If you actually believe that E, then you are not a scientist.
One of the “papers” you mentioned was about the 800,000K nonsense. The other “paper” stated:
“When the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled, a small additional downward IR flux impinges on the ocean. This flux warms the surface and reduces the rate of heat loss by the oceans.”
That is all BELIEF. It’s not science. It’s like saying ice cubes make something hotter. You have no science to support your false beliefs, because they are FALSE.
Oops, I messed up the italics. I’ll try again.
“When the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled, a small additional downward IR flux impinges on the ocean. This flux warms the surface and reduces the rate of heat loss by the oceans.”
That is all BELIEF. It’s not science. It’s like saying ice cubes make something hotter. You have no science to support your false beliefs, because they are FALSE.
A few university teachers spend their Summer holidays measuring the world. They write each other notes describing what they’ve found.Every five years or so some of them write a summary so that the politicians know what is happening.
ERA reanalysis is in for November.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-november-2020
It was the warmest November on record smashing the previous record set in 2019. Actually November ended up being the 2nd warmest month overall behind February 2020.
bdg…”It was the warmest November on record smashing the previous record set in 2019″.
Smashing??? What was the difference, about 0.001 C?
Nov 2019 was +0.64. Nov 2020 was +0.77.
skeptic…” They BOTH maintain the same orientation, meaning the body cannot rotate at all”.
If a car approaches a mountain range on a level prairie highway it is said to be preforming rectilinear translation. If it reaches the mountains and starts to climb, going around curves that make it point N,S,E and W, according to skeptic, it is no longer translating across the mountains.
What do you think translation means, the imaginary movement of an imaginary particle on an imaginary 2-D or 3-D surface? Get real. We need to apply both rectinlinear and curvilinear translation in the real world and your definition of CT restricts it to gizmos like ferris wheel gondolas and buses with their wheels replaced by rigid arms to move them in unnatural ways.
Has it ever occurred to you that the people writing those textbooks are dweebs like you who cannot think for themselves?
Gordon shrieks:
“If a car approaches a mountain range on a level prairie highway it is said to be preforming rectilinear translation. If it reaches the mountains and starts to climb, going around curves that make it point N,S,E and W, according to skeptic, it is no longer translating across the mountains.”
The kinematic references I quoted for curvilinear translation were mainly from lecture notes for mechanical engineering courses in dynamics. Some were from textbooks, but they ALL are consistent with the definition for curvilinear translation. Every one.
When a rigid body follows a curve, it will either be in translation mode (which is rare) or in a rotation mode, like ball on string, horse on circular track, car on curve.
You can make up your own definition if you want. That’s how you guys roll. You have to redefine the principles of kinematics to make your system work.
Sorry, SGW, rotation about an external axis exists. You don’t get to pretend otherwise.
SGW, you quoted a definition of “Kinematics”. I agreed with the definition. But, you don’t go by the definition you found!
Kinematics does NOT describe orbital motion. That’s why you end up with false beliefs that one side of Moon is moving faster than the other side. And that’s why you believe a ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
You’re wrong, and you won’t accept the correct definition.
skeptic…”When a rigid body follows a curve, it will either be in translation mode (which is rare) or in a rotation mode, like ball on string, horse on circular track, car on curve”.
****
A car moving around a curve is not rotating. It’s motion has nothing to do with rotation, it is a self-powered rigid body translating around a curve. The motion is called curvilinear translation.
When it comes to textbooks, egregious errors have been perpetuated for decades. In all electrical engineering textbooks it is claimed that electrical current flows from positive to negative. They admit the flow is based on convention meaning it is based on an incorrect assumption about electrical current from a definition circa 1925.
The authors know the convention is wrong but they perpetuate it out of convention. Electrical current is the flow of electrons, but for some reason, a twit back in 1925 thought there must be some kind of positively charged particle moving in the circuit. Along the way, others twits claimed to have measured the mass of the positive charges.
What they were measuring was holes left in the conduction bands of atoms in a conductor when an electron vacated the space. Naturally, such holes appear to move in the opposite direction to the electron but a hole is a hole. It has nothing in it.
This madness has been perpetuated in semiconductor theory. A pioneer in the field, Shockley, coined the word ‘hole’ to define a space in an atom containing nothing. Duh!!! At least Shockley admitted that he used the word to help visualize a condition in semiconductors where electrons are added to a piece of silicon, creating an N-type, or a dearth of electrons is created in a p-type. A hole is referred to as a position in an atom where an electron has vacated the position, or was never there by design (doping).
In most modern textbooks in electronics, textbook authors insist that holes actually flow through a semiconductor. The problem has been compounded by authors using conventional current flow. In a diode, or a bipolar junction transistor, the arrow on the schematic points in the direction of conventional current, from positive to negative. I have refused to use that insane convention and imagine electrons flowing against the arrow. It has worked well for me.
When it comes to curvilinear translation, the mechanical engineering textbook authors likely know little about it. It’s not a common term in engineering, nor is rectilinear translation. These are throwaway terms used in textbooks which are offered as standard jargon for beginners. Of course, beginners like Skeptic or Norman drool over this jargon and stick by it verbatim.
Gordon barks:
A car moving around a curve is not rotating
The term rotation means to turn. If the car did not rotate, it would run off the road tangent to the curve.
Gordon yelps:
it is a self-powered rigid body translating around a curve. The motion is called curvilinear translation.
Nope. A translating object keeps the same orientation, faces the same direction. Why do you INSIST on changing the definition of curvilinear translation??!!! There is absolutely no reason to.
Gordon howls:
When it comes to curvilinear translation, the mechanical engineering textbook authors likely know little about it
BS. Besides many of my references were from course lecture notes from prestigious universities. The following are course notes from Brown University Division of Engineering, for a course in dynamics and vibrations:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.“
[https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Brown University is not about to teach your BS definition of curvilinear translation. They are a prestigious university.
"A translating object keeps the same orientation, faces the same direction."
Which is how the Spinners describe an object that is orbiting (but not rotating about its own center of mass) – as moving with the same face always oriented towards the same distant star, throughout.
So, now you understand your own argument. You’re welcome.
salvatore…”The counter to that is if you have El Nino conditions the rule and limited major volcanic activity which has been the case over the last decade you will have warming”.
There is a limit to the amount of warming. El Ninos can’t create heat they can only circulate what is there. GHGs can’t warm either so in the long run we’ll see a variable global temperature based on what solar energy can supply.
Right now we’re on the upside of the roller coaster.
If the measuring stations are located in urban heat islands, the comparison with data from 50 years ago is not very reliable.
ren
” GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)
One of the improvements introduced in 1998 was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations.
Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas. ”
Source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Of course: the discrediting, denigrating and distorting dumbies usually operating here will pretend this never being done, or that nightlight evaluation is a bad method, or this, or that…
When I evaluate the data of worldwide over 40,000 stations provided by the GHCN daily data set, I even don’t adapt let alone suppress UHI contexts! The difference is small.
J.-P. D.
binny…” GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)
One of the improvements introduced in 1998 was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations”.
****
urban adjustment = urban fudging
GISS is lead by a climate alarmist whose good friend, Michael Mann, was caught in the Climategate email scandal trying to interfere in peer review. When it was revealed that Mann had cheated in his analysis of tree ring proxies by replacing declining proxy temperatures with real temperatures (Mike’s trick aka hide the decline) Gavin Schmidt, now head of GISS, defended his cheating.
GISS has been cheating all along, lead initially by James Hansen, a climate activist who was arrested for protesting the Keystone pipeline. GISS is nothing more than a front for climate alarmists whose real purpose is to uphold the dead theory of anthropogenic warming.
Robertson
You write such a nonsense all the time that we forget to reply.
All you write here again is the product of an ignorant dumb ass who thinks what he writes would have to do with science.
All you write is woeful, ignorant Rep & Trump politics.
J.-P. D.
You’d rather they left the urban heat influence in the global temperature record?
All about the moons , tether balls and merry go rounds included
https://youtu.be/bn64kiu_zR4
Eben
Can’t see it in Germoney, what a pity!
J.-P. D.
step 1 -Learn how to use a computer
step 2 -Use american proxy
Eben
Das war ja mal wieder eine schwachsinnige Antwort…
J.-P. D.
When you figure it out call me , I will send you one free ticket to internets
The combined gravity of Jupiter and Saturn could pull more dust into Earth’s orbit from the tail of the asteroid Phaethon since December 14.
Albedo at the end of the day rules the climate. The question is will it increase in a weakening solar/geo magnetic environment?
Wil have to see. In the meantime the temperature trends are up perhaps in response to co2 increases.
The ENSO cycle is the most important in terms of the global amount of water vapor and the associated global temperature. It can be observed that El Nino forms at the end of the solar cycle and La Nina at the beginning of a new cycle. However, low solar activity disrupts this cycle via the meridional jetstream. This weakens the wind along the equator. It can be seen that during the previous cycle the period of weak El Nino had lengthened. Research has shown that there was a similar situation in the Pacific during the Little Ice Age.
I think the Earth uses the energy reserves stored in the oceans during very strong solar cycles. Very high geomagnetic activity must result in additional energy provided by the solar wind.
“I think the Earth uses the energy reserves stored in the oceans during very strong solar cycles.”
In this case the ocean heat content must be reduced when we have low solar activity like we have had the last 20-30 years. The opposite is the case: Global ocean heat content is raising faster now than before 1990.So data show that you are wrong.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uUNekBFKn16pma2VTogbGsf_VmdXtx99mUmpO26E4YU/edit#slide=id.p
There is something missing but I still think very low solar(with burst of energy)/major volcanic activity ,weak geo magnetic field will conspire to increase albedo, cool the climate.
Threshold levels of the 3 or a combination may be out there.
Something has caused the earth to have cold periods much less ice ages.
I think we are in the ball park because if it isn’t these items what is left.
Atmospheric circulation can effect oceanic circulation which could be related to low solar as an example, causes cooling..
Maybe it starts with sea ice accumulation North of Iceland due to different atmospheric and oceanic circulations for another example.
Maybe it is simply more snow coverage /cloud coverage again due to what has been mentioned.
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-was-the-little-ice-age
So what caused the Little Ice Age? It was likely a combination of factors that included long periods of low sunspot activity (which reduced the amount of solar energy that reached Earth), the effects of explosive volcanic eruptions, and drastic changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (the irregular fluctuation of atmospheric pressure over the North Atlantic Ocean).
I think it is the above and the above is influenced greatly by external factors such as the sun, charged particles, galactic cosmic rays etc.
salavatore…”So what caused the Little Ice Age?”
Don’t forget variations in orbit. Apparently the Earth varies in its orbit in cycles.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/milankovitch-cycles-paleoclimatic-change-and-hominin-evolution-68244581/
true
I think orbital variations take too long to account for the LIA. Temp changes over Milankovitch cycles are measured in tens of thousands of years. LIA was a few hundred years.
barry
You are of course right.
Robertson never cares of whether his meaning is accurate: the one and only goal for him is to be contrarian:
” Apparently the Earth varies in its orbit in cycles. ”
Apparently! Oh Noes. Look at the Milankovitch periods, in years:
Eccentricity: 100,000
Axial tilt: 41,000
Precession: 23,000
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
We are currently everywhere in the ‘good middle’.
This is what you never see when Contrarians are at work…
J.-P. D.
Are you being contrary again, JD?
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age
It is within all the things we throw out.
Salavatore…I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude that volcanoes caused nearly 400 years of that kind of cooling. I can see that for a few years, but not 400 years.
I am saying volcanos are part of the story. Not the story.
Volcano impacts depend upon
location of the volcano
explosive power and altitude reached
composition of the ash cloud
duration of the ash cloud in atmosphere
number or frequency of explosions
One thing is for sure they do cause cooling to one degree to another. It could be a year many years. No doubt about that.
One volcano is a temporary event, which reduces temperature by a few tenths of a C for a few years. You would need either a series of volcanoes or an ongoing shield eruption to produce an effect over centuries.
That would show as dust and sulphuric acid in the ice cores, but we only see it at the start, not for the whole LIA.
Salvatore
Your volcano hint is pretty correct!
The LIA was of course not set up by a single volcano eruption, even if the Samalas eruption in 1257 (it was rather an explosion) is one of the two or three greatest ones in the last 25,000 years.
In 1258, 33 % of London’s population died due to hunger and disease following this major volcanic event.
As I indicated a lot of times, there were a lot of consecutive eruptions following it, see comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564520
The consequence of this sustained volcanic VEI 5/6 activity (11 eruptions in 300 years, together with at least 35 smaller ones, of VEI 3/4) was a considerable cooling of the oceans.
As Entropic man (or Svante?) noticed, the Maunder minimum never can have been the cause of the LIA. It added a mere -0.3C cooling to what had begun at least two centuries before. The other minima (Oort, Wolf, Spoerer) were by far weaker.
J.-P. D.
skeptic…”Your statement is simply false. You once again make up your own definition of what comprises rotation. The rotation in this problem is easily measured wrt the X’-Y’-Z’ reference frame”.
Try using your brain rather than shooting off your mouth. Any body rotating about a local axis requires an angular velocity about that axis. For a horse running an oval track, in order for it to rotate through 360 degrees per lap, that means the side of the horse nearest the centre of the track must rotate at the halfway point so it is pointing out the way, meaning the horse is now running backwards down the track.
I am lecturing you on kinematics because you fail to understand such basic principles in kinematics. You’ve gotten yourself so immersed in theoretical reference frames that you cannot see the reality staring you in the face.
ROTATION ABOUT A LOCAL AXIS REQUIRES AN ANGULAR VELOCITY ABOUT THAT AXIS. It does not matter which reference frame you imagine yourself to be in, or which reference frame you are viewing from, if a rigid body is not rotating with a local angular velocity about its COG IT IS NOT ROTATING about that COG in any reference frame.
I just pointed that out to you using three vectors attached to the horse. All three vectors move in parallel at all times maintaining their position so the vector closest to the track is always closest to the track.
The vectors are not rotating about the horse’s COG as would be required for local rotation. For local rotation representing a 360 degree rotation per lap, the vector closest to the centre of the track MUST change places with the vector furthest from the track by the halfway point.
It’s easier to see that with a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel. It is impossible for the wooden horse to rotate about its COG since the bolts prevent any angular velocity about its COG. It’s the same for a real horse on a track unless the jockey wants to turn the horse in a complete circle once per lap, meaning the horse would be running backward at some point and sideways at other times.
Gordon,
Here’s a link to my horse running on a circular track problem for reference:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566219
Point B was on the outside edge of the horse, point A was at the center of mass (COM) of the horse.
The results of the calculations for the above problem were as follows:
V(B) = 101 m/min
V(A) = 100 m/min
V(B/A) = 1 m/min
Spin angular velocity of horse about own axis = 1 rad/min
Gordon shrieked:
ROTATION ABOUT A LOCAL AXIS REQUIRES AN ANGULAR VELOCITY ABOUT THAT AXIS!
I did calculate that. It was 1 rad/min. The orbital angular velocity of the horse was given at 1 rad/min.
Gordon screams:
For a horse running an oval track, in order for it to rotate through 360 degrees per lap, that means the side of the horse nearest the centre of the track must rotate at the halfway point so it is pointing out the way, meaning the horse is now running backwards down the track.
Totally wrong. The position vector rB/A for the horse makes a 360 degree rotation about the X’-Y’-Z’ local coordinate system for every lap the horse runs around the circular track.
The horse’s velocity at its COM is 100 m/min (CCW direction). The horse has a spin angular velocity of 1 rad/min, which means the local tangential velocity of the outside edge of the horse wrt its COM is 1 m/min (CCW). To obtain the velocity of the outside edge of the horse (V(B) in the inertial reference frame, you add the 1 m/min relative velocity to velocity of the COM and obtain 101 m/min for the outside edge of the horse. That number is confirmed by performing an independent calculation using v=<i)wr:
V(B)= (1 rad/min)101 m = 101 m/min
All the calculation check out. Let the moaning and gnashing of teeth begin.
Gordon considers 2 horses — one running around a track and one bolted to a merry-go-round. Since he wants to explore various scenarios, lets try one more. Anyone can play along.
My horse is a merry-go-round horse, with the axle mounted on a frictionless bearing, with the bearings mounted inside the trailer of a semi. The truck is driving at a steady speed due north; the nose of the horse is pointing due north, toward the front of the truck.
The truck starts to make a steady, easy, level, constant-speed circular turn to the left (west). Because the bearings for the axle are frictionless the horse maintains its orientation with the nose pointing due north. There is no friction and no torque, so the angle doesn’t change.
After a quarter turn to the left, the nose of the truck pointing west. The nose of the horse is pointing north still, which is toward the right side of the truck.
The horse has
a) not rotated because it is still pointing north, it has maintained its orientation with respect to the inertial frame of the ground.
b) rotated 90 degrees to the right because it is facing the right side of the truck.
The truck has
a) not rotated, because the truck is always pointing forward in its own reference frame.
b) rotated 90 degrees to the left.
Folkerts, that is NOT orbital motion. You have eliminated vectors acting on the horse with your frictionless bearing. Orbital motion involves vectors.
a) Are you ignorant, or
b) Deceptive, or
c) Both a and b?
“You have eliminated vectors acting on the horse with your frictionless bearing. “
No, I have matched the actual situation for the moon! Gravity is essentially a “frictionless bearing”. The moon is not “bolted to a merry-go-round”, but is free so spin.
It is your merry-go-round that is the bad analogy, INTRODUCING ‘vectors’ that are NOT there for the moon. I am ELIMINATING the error in the merry-go-round analogy.
(Yes there is a TINY ‘friction’ due to tidal forces, but this is a tiny torque. This is an ALMOST frictionless bearing. If “tidal locking” were like bolts, then every planet would be ‘tidally locked’ with the sun and every moon would be ‘tidally locked’ with its planet.)
You have perverted the actual situation for the moon! Gravity is NOT essentially a frictionless bearing! Where did you ever dream up such nonsense. No one said Moon was bolted to the mgr. Are you an idiot?
Moon’s orbit is the resultant of two vectors. That’s what orbital motion is. The mgr and ball-on-a-string are both good analogies of orbital motion.
Learn what orbital motion is. Quit trying to pervert reality. There’s no future in that.
“Moons orbit is the resultant of two vectors.”
Define what “two vectors” you are talking about. A “resultant” is a sum of two vectors, so the two vectors would have to be the same quantity (‘you can’t add apples and oranges’). So two forces or two velocities or two displacements, etc. So tell us what two vectors you are adding!
Folkerts, is a ball on a string rotating on its axis?
If you can’t answer that simple question correctly, then you’re not ready for physics.
Let me know when you can answer the question, without obfuscation.
is a ball on a string rotating on its axis?
I already proved that. But we are all still waiting for your instantaneous velocity calculations for the ball since you keep squealing:
All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the balls center of mass!
Now would be a good time to put up.
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation.
SGW have you memorized the definition of Kinematics you found? I know science is hard, but memorizing sometimes forces an understanding. Try it.
Once again, I’ll bold the reasons Kinematics does NOT match with orbital motion.
“It should be noted that kinematics is not concerned with why things move; that question is addressed in mechanics by the introduction of forces, which induce accelerations. In kinematics, we are only concerned with position and its first derivative, velocity.”
[https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf]
The science of Kinematics is unable to deal with the fact that the vectors acting on an orbiting body are incrementally changing its direction. Such motion does not fit with Kinematics. That’s why you keep getting wrong answers. That’s why you can’t understand that all points on Moon are moving with the same velocity. You don’t understand either Kinematics or orbital motion. You are uneducated and you can’t learn.
“You have perverted the actual situation for the moon! Gravity is NOT essentially a frictionless bearing!”
Maybe it’s better to say that space is a frictionless bearing. Gravity (ignoring tidal forces) only affects the path of the center of mass. Free falling objects can tumble in any direction – only the center of mass follows a predictable path.
Any object in space will tumble unless stabilized by another force. A satellite launched into Earth orbit won’t naturally have the same side face the Earth the way the Moon does.
Craig T, you don’t understand orbital motion. Now you don’t understand gravity.
Clint can’t seem to understand that it does not matter one bit WHY a rigid body moves the way it moves. Any motion can be described via kinematics.
And Clint has yet to provide his velocity calcs for the moon or the ball on a string, because he is incapable of it.
A body with all points moving at the same velocity is translating. The moon is not translating.
He keeps repeating his mantra with NOTHING to back it up.
An orbit is a path or trajectory a rigid body follows. It says nothing in regards to whether the object has spin angular velocity or not.
Either provide the calcs or shut the f$#% up, clown.
"An orbit is a path or trajectory a rigid body follows…"
Incorrect. The Spinners describe an object that is orbiting (but not rotating about its own center of mass) as moving with the same face always oriented towards the same distant star, throughout.
So, now you understand your own argument. You’re welcome.
SGW, you need to study the definition of “Kinematics” you found. It was correct. You need to try to understand that Kinematics does NOT allow for orbital motion. Orbital motion is outside the science of Kinematics because the body is incrementally responding to vectors changing its direction.
You keep asking for “velocity calcs”, because you can’t understand that all points on Moon, or the ball on a string, of the wooden horse have the same instantaneous velocity.
After all this time, you STILL can’t understand orbital motion.
Ball on string. Fact: The outside edge of the ball travels a farther distance than the inside edge in the same amount of time, therefore the velocities are different and you’re a clown.
Your personal definitions for terms like orbital and orbit don’t count. Your personal definition for translation does not count.
You do not perform science. What you engage in is more along the lines of alchemy. You don’t know anything about kinematics because you never went to university, it appears.
You can’t even perform a simple velocity calculation, you are so dumb.
And apparently you enjoy looking like a fool, because you sure excel at it.
EVERY sentence is wrong, SGW. Even Norman and JD Bindidon sometimes get at least one sentence right. But you are 100% WRONG!
All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity. You can’t use Kinematics for orbital motion, or you will get the wrong answers. That’s what your Cornell Univ source told you. But, you prefer disregarding that definition because it does not fit your beliefs.
You’re 100% wrong, and can’t learn. At least you can’t get any worse….
“All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity.”
Its hard believe that any educated person could actually believe this nonsense?
He must be just trying to be funny…
If not, lets see the logic behind that.
“An orbit is a path or trajectory a rigid body follows”
Incorrect. ”
As you well know, that is the definition that has been quoted to you direct from more than one source several times.
You have admitted that Astronomy disagrees with you on this issue. So you are saying Astronomy’s definition of ORBIT is incorrect.
Incorrect.
You are looping again.
And two more physics laws or principles to add to Clint’s Not Physics List.
Maybe we’ll call it his Naughty Physics List
Radiative Heat Transfer Equation.
First Law of Thermodynamics
Kirchoffs Law
Addition of fluxes.
Cant add force and momentum vectors.
Cassinis Laws
.
.
Kinematics
V = R x omega
ClintR squeals like a girl:
“All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity!”
Once again Clint FAILS to provide any calculations whatsoever. He is just a pretender, a fake. His definition of “orbit” is not found anywhere in the field of science.
You know how we have the “special” Olympics? Well ClintR has his “special” physics. All his flat earther buddies do.
A rigid body where all points have the same velocity is undergoing translation according to every kinematic reference in the world. The ball on a string is not translating. The moon is not translating. A translating body has NO parts that rotate per every kinematic reference in the world.
The velocities for the far and near side edges a ball on a sting can be found with the formula V= wr. The far side edge has a greater radius from the string’s origin, so the velocity will be greater than the near side edge. Clint would be laughed out of every physics class in the world. He would be sent to his “special” physics class where they play with paper, glue and scissors.
I am sorry you are such a simpleton and can’t grasp simple concepts. You are a 100% wrong, and 100% a MORON.
All of your time abusing your keyboards can’t change reality, SGW and Nate.
A simple ball-on-a-string wipes you out.
Learn about “orbital motion”.
ClintR squeals like a girl:
All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity!
Still no calculations from our resident buffoon. It must be so frustrating for him to be on the losing end all the time.
“That ain’t orbital motion, idiot.”
You’re right that merry-go-round and balls on string aren’t orbital motion. But since it’s the analogy you want to use I’ll stick with it.
I assume you believe that it’s possible for planets and moons to have rotational motion while in orbit. A ball on a string can not rotate while traveling in a circle. Horses bolted to a merry-go-round can’t rotate.
But a horse mounted on frictionless bearings has the ability to rotate. It can rotate whether or not the merry-go-round is turning. Newton’s laws predict a non-rotating horse on frictionless bearings would not rotate until a torque acts on it.
Craig, an object that can revolve around a central, external point, but cannot rotate about its own axis, always moves the same way. With the same face always oriented towards that central, external point. That should tell you something.
Tells me it doesn’t match the Moon.
Does a ball on a string have two axes of rotation, Svante? Yes or no?
The correct answer is no. I would like to hear your response, though. No waffle, just either a yes or a no, please.
If that’s an exclusive “or” I say yes.
…and this is why there is no point getting off track on libration etc. Your issue over the moon is far more simple and fundamental than that. Until you can answer that question with a direct no, then you are miles off understanding.
Yes, since when you cut the string the orbiting stops and rotation remains.
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
All explained before, a dozen times.
“You have eliminated vectors acting on the horse with your frictionless bearing. Orbital motion involves vectors.”
A frictionless bearing leaves the force analogous to gravity on the Moon – a change in the direction of velocity. The relevant vector remains intact.
What the bearing removes is the force that keeps the same side of the horse facing the center of the merry-go-round. The horse would keep its starting orientation in respect to the inertial reference frame of the world.
If I threw the horse off a tower it would not rotate as gravity pulled it to the ground, even if I gave it the same forward velocity that it has on the merry-go-round.
Have you noticed the more you comment the stupider you sound?
Clint, I’ve noticed you insult a lot more than you explain why something is wrong.
Adding bearings to the horse prevents the merry-go-round from transferring torque to the horse.
Newton’s laws apply to angular momentum as well as linear momentum. A rotating object will continue to rotate until acted upon by a torque. A non-rotating object won’t start rotating unless acted upon by a torque.
Let’s start with a stationary merry-go-round and a horse facing north. When the merry-go-round starts turning angular momentum would keep the horse facing north. If the horse is mounted on a pole bolted to the merry-go-round it is forced to turn. A torque is passed through the pole to the horse.
A frictionless bearing prevents a torque from changing the orientation of the horse. With no additional torque applied the rotational momentum of the horse keeps it facing north.
Ignoring tidal forces, gravity only changes the direction of linear motion of an object in orbit. No torque is transferred to change the angular momentum. Space is a perfect 3D frictionless bearing
That ain’t orbital motion, idiot.
Here is an even better set-up to get to the core of this issue. Consider a standard x-y plotter, like this: https://www.robotshop.com/media/files/images2/makeblock-xy-plotter-robot-kit-no-electronics-desc1.jpg
I replace the pen with a little electric motor that spins clockwise once every 4 seconds (15 PRM) when on (and stops and locks when turned off). The axle is oriented vertically and on the top of the axle, I mount a cute little plastic horse. The axis of the horse is the axis of the motor.
In the following scenarios, is the horse rotating on its axis? If so, what rate?
Motor OFF, plotter OFF
Motor OFF, plotter moving left or right (-x or +x)
Motor OFF, plotter moving forward or back (+y or -y)
Motor OFF, plotter moving diagonally (both x and y)
Motor OFF, plotter moving clockwise around a big square (+x for 1 s; -y for 1 s; -x for 1 s; +y for 1 s, repeat)
Motor OFF, plotter moving in a big Figure 8
Motor ON, plotter OFF
Motor ON, plotter moving left or right (x)
Motor ON, plotter moving forward or back (y)
Motor ON, plotter moving diagonally (both x and y)
Motor OFF, plotter moving clockwise around a big square (+x for 1 s; -y for 1 s; -x for 1 s; +y for 1 s, repeat)
Motor ON, plotter moving in a big Figure 8
Motor ON, plotter moving in a big clockwise circle that takes 4 seconds to complete.
The answer from anyone (whether a 6 year old, an auto mechanic, a NASA engineer, or a physics professor) is that when the motor is off, the toy horse is not rotating. When the motor is on, the toy horse is rotating at 15 RPM.
Do you have a clue what orbital motion is?
Forget for a moment the word “orbital”. The toy horse on the x-y plotter can have various motions. Which of those motions involves “rotation about the horse’s axis”?
ANSWER: ALL of them where the motor is turned on.
Now instead of imagining “circular orbital motion” as a giant merry-go-round carrying the moon, we could just as accurately consider a giant x-y plotter & motor. The moon will move in exactly the same path with either model and maintain exactly the same orientation with either model. Neither model is exactly like gravity, so neither one is intrinsically more like “true orbital motion”. But both give the same motion, so both are equally ‘good’ in this regard.
Here’s the kicker. I could program the x-y plotter to move in an ellipse that mimics the elliptical path our moon (or any other moon or planet or asteroid). Faster in some places, slower in other. The “constant speed motor on the x-y plotter” model will generate exactly the right librations. The “bolted to a merry-go-round” model fails. (it also fails in that there are no “graviational bolts” locking the moon into one orientation).
Since my model agrees with actual observations, my model ‘wins’.
No, you keep making up new games so you can “win”.
But reality always makes you a loser.
Got anymore games?
Its fascinating how you always complain and divert, but never actually address the issues. You never have any concrete mistake to point to. Nothing but your own authority to point to for what “orbital motion” means.
And now the false accusations begin. Typical behavior of an idiot that gets caught perverting reality.
Folkerts dreams up several diversions, then he accuses me of diverting!
He says I never point to any of his “concrete mistakes”. That’s all I do!
Orbital motion is well established. It’s not my fault idiots don’t understand it. Newton understood it over 3 centuries ago. The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy to orbital motion. The idiots hate how simple reality really is.
Clint squeals like a little girl:
All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity as the ball’s center of mass!
Tim, myself and others have presented elegant proofs with solved equations that debunk your stupidity, but Clint NEVER EVER backs up his raving rants with solved equations.
Your reputation has taken a severe beating, if you ever had one. All you do is cry, sulk and whimper. You are not ready to play with the big boys.
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation.
SGW, as DREMT has mentioned, it appears YOU, and Tim, are the one that has had your nonsense debunked. You still can’t understand orbital motion, and you still try to use Kinematics which does not fit with orbital motion.
And, you can’t learn.
So cry, sulk and whimper all you want.
An orbit is a path, clown. Your definition is made-up. Phony. It does not matter anyway, because with kinematics, you don’t NEED to know why an objects moves. Kinematics can describe any motion.
So cry, 96 tears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uC5m-IRns
“An orbit is a path, clown.”
Incorrect. The Spinners describe an object that is orbiting (but not rotating about its own center of mass) as moving with the same face always oriented towards the same distant star, throughout.
So, now you understand your own argument. You’re welcome.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549801
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
How quickly they “forget.”
Nice animation of the moon orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis.
Ball on string:
https://postimg.cc/dLqkKP24
The local rotation is isolated at the bottom right. Spin angular velocity is 1 rotation per orbit. Same as my proof.
The blue line is the position vector to Point B on the far edge of ball. The position vector makes 1 rotation about the local axis per every orbit of the ball.
Bummer.
In the ball on a string problem, the COM (Point A) of the ball had a given orbital angular velocity of 1 rad/s. That means there’s an axis of rotation about the orbit point “O”. The other axis of rotation was about the COM of the ball. I had to use both axes of rotation in my calculations.
1+1=2 last time I checked.
Nice animation of the ball on the string orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis.
You said of your own “proof” regarding the ball on a string:
“So there is your proof that the ball on a string can be described as a translation plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.”
A translation does not involve an axis of rotation. So, 0 + 1 = 1. You still only have one axis of rotation, even with your way of looking at it. As far as the Non-Spinners are concerned, and even some of the Spinners, ftop_t proved that the ball on the string has only one axis of rotation, going through the center of the revolution. The ball is not rotating about its center of mass.
Either way, 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 revolution, and the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Not that it matters, but I don’t even need to use the kinematic equation where the general motion of a rigid body is equivalent to “a translation plus a rotation”.
Same ball on sting problem. The given is that the ball has an orbital angular velocity of 1 rad/s. So that means the ball has an axis of rotation about the origin “O”. We will then assume the ball also has a spin angular velocity of 1 rad/sec about its center of mass.
With that assumption, the tangential velocity of V(B) wrt the COM equals 1 m/s. To obtain V(B) you add that relative velocity to the velocity of the V(A}, to obtain 10 m/s. You then use the v=wr formula to independently come up with V{B) equal to 10 m/s as well, confirming your assumption was true.
So two axes of rotation for ball on string.
Another bummer for the flat earth society.
It really must be disheartening for the flat earth society to always be on the losing end.
This really IS like shooting fish in a barrel. LMAO.
…and, if there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Tim’s example of an XY plotter shows that in the real world of engineering, it makes no sense to combine translation and rotation into one motion, by having that little motor attached that would make the pen rotate whenever it wanted to draw a curved path (trajectory).
But that is what the non-spinners are promoting.
The idea that movement on a curved or circular path is best modelled as a combination of translation with rotation of the object to point along the path.
It isn’t.
If Engineers incorporate such motion into technology it just makes the technology more complicated and more cumbersome to use or program.
Thus neither astronomy nor aerospace engineering incorporates such motion into their spacecraft trajectories, nor models of planetary orbits that are required for their spacecraft to track.
They wisely SEPARATE translation and rotation of orbiting spacecraft or planets.
Correction:
“The idea that movement on a curved or circular path is best modelled as a combination of translation with rotation of the object to point along the path.”
Should be “the idea that movement on a curved or circular path is intrinsically accompanied by rotation of the object to point along the path.
Then to achieve a pure translation on a curved trajectory, which is what is desired for the pen, one would have to add-in a rotation to UNDO the intrinsic rotation built in”
The horse has:
a. Not rotated. It is performing curvilinear translation since every straight line in the horse maintains the same direction, as is the requirement for translation.
The truck has:
b. rotated 90 degrees to the left.
It has performed a 1/4 orbit along a curve.
In order to keep the left side of the horse to face the center of orbit, it has to rotate on its own axis at the same orbital angular velocity of the truck. I already performed a proof for this type of motion.
SGW is determined to keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Salvatore Del Prete
This is a bit of fun, but it does give you a feel for the modern view of Holocene temperature change.
For reference, zero on the anomaly temperature scale is 14C.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
that is a very good chart best I have seen
Scientifically accurate, but produced by a science educated cartoonist. I think the intent was to amuse rather than educate.
Entropic man
Thanks for the link, I pretty good remember that chart, but I had lost the link to it.
It’s really well done, and helps in escaping from the daily pseudoskeptic nonsense flood.
J.-P. D.
A cartoon showing the temperature record for thousands of years in the past, and idiots lap it up! And, the claim is, it’s “scientifically accurate”!
You can’t make this stuff up!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552711
Today would be a good day for Tonto the clown, a.k.a. ClintR. to release his debunking of tidal locking.
It has been 25 days and all he has done so far is divert and deflect.
Note that the Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and 431 does not say anything about hammers and feathers. It does say the following however:
1.- The lunar dynamical model for DE430 includes interaction between the rotation of the fluid core and the mantle.
2.- The effect of this interaction is clearly seen in Lunar Laser Ranging data and characterizes a damping in the differential rotation between the core and mantle.
3.- The orientation of the lunar exterior (mantle and crust, hereafter referred to by mantle) is parameterized by Euler angles that relate the Moon-centered, rotating lunar mantle to the inertial frame.
4.- The Moon’s second-degree gravity field is time varying due to distortion by tides and spin.
5.- The mantle coordinate system is defined by the principal axes of the undistorted mantle in which the moment of inertia matrix of the undistorted mantle is diagonal.
6.- The directions of the principal axes are derived from analysis of Lunar Laser Ranging data.
7.- The Euler angles that define the rotation from the principal axis frame to the inertial frame are: the angle from the X-axis of the inertial frame along the X-Y plane to the intersection of the mantle equator; the inclination of the mantle equator from the inertial X-Y plane; and the longitude from the intersection of the inertial X-Y plane with the mantle equator along the mantle equator to the prime meridian.
Put-up or shut-up.
(Please don’t anyone inform this idiot that the debunking was “released” several weeks ago, and has been re-released several times since then. It’s fun to watch idiots wallow in their own stupidity.)
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
we’re all on to you!
Snape, Tyson, Doris, confirms his/her lack of maturity, again.
https://tinyurl.com/tidal-locking-debunk
There is something that confuses me. If you look up the site below, they state an extreme warming of the Arctic (80N+) in the winter (+6-8K vs. early 1960s), none at all however during the summer.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php
The UAH record on the other side shows nothing like it. Yes, there is significant warming in the Artic (more than anywhere else), but it is about 1K or a bit less both for winter and summer.
Could anyone help me with that?
The sea ice North of 80 degrees is virtually icebound all year round.
Temperatures are measured right near the surface. What is the temperature of ice?
You will notice that the temperature through Summer at DMI hovers at around 0C degrees – the freezing point of ice.
Summer temps for the DMI record will remain at around 0C as long as there is perennial sea ice North of 80N.
By the way, I got this information from emailing one of the scientists at DMI.
Found the email. I’ve included the most pertinent parts of the response. This emailed reply from DMI was in late 2010. Italics are my question.
—————————-
I am curious about the temperature profiles for the Arctic, 80 degrees North from 1958 to present… I have read quite a few studies on Arctic summertime temperatures indicating that the temperature trend for the region has been significantly positive over the last few decades. The University of Alabama satellite record maintained by Roy Spencer and John Christy has a trend of 0.47C/decade since 1979. I realize that the circle of the Arctic your graph covers is a smaller area than many other assessments of Arctic temperatures… …would you be amenable to providing a brief reply….? It would appear at a glance that summer time temperatures have increased little over the past few decades going by the DMI graph set. Do you hold this to be the case?
From the link to WUWT, that you’ve attached below[*], it seems that a cooling temperature trend in the Arctic summer is present, throughout the past approximately 10 years. Where ‘summer’ is defined as the period where the +80N mean temperature is above 273K. However, I very much doubt that a simple conclusion can be drawn from that, as there are complicating aspects to that analysis, e.g.: 1) The surface in the +80N area is more or less fully snow and ice covered all year, so the temperature is strongly controlled by the melting temperature of the surface. I.e. the +80N temperature is bound to be very close to the melt point of the surface snow and ice (273K) and the variability is therefore very small, less than 0.5K. I am sure you will find a much clearer warming trend in the same analysis applied to the winter period. The winter period is more crucial for the state of the Arctic sea ice, as this is the period where the ice is produced and the colder the winter the thicker and more robust the sea ice will become. 2) The +80N temperature data after 2002 are based on the operational global deterministic models at ECMWF, at any given time. Before 2002 the ERA 40 reanalysis is used. I.e. the +80N temperatures are based on 4 different models, the model used for the ERA 40 data set and the operational models T511, T799 and T1279. The point is that there can be a temperature bias in one or more of the models, that can cause the lower temperature level since approximately 2002, where the shift between the ERA40 data and the operational model data occur in the WUWT-plot from the link below.
————————-
Here’s something I’ve learned in the last 6 months: Skeptics lean toward analyzing facts, while idiots lean toward following authority figures. Here’s an example:
A Skeptic and an idiot are sitting at a bar, watching TV. The TV announcer says “The Cowboys will play the Rams this Sunday.”
A few minutes later, the bartender changes the channel and another announcer says “The Cowboys will play the Saints this Sunday.”
The Skeptic, knowing something about football, says “That can’t be right”.
The idiot, believing that TV announcers are always right, says “Maybe it’s a double-header.”
ClintR
The only problem is you are NOT a skeptic at all. You are a contrarian. You oppose established physics just to do it and for no other reason. You call an actual established equation (used in engineering all the time) for radiative heat transfer bogus. Not because it is actually “bogus” only to be a contrarian.
NO you are not a skeptic. A skeptic will challenge a theory or idea until good evidence is submitted, then they will accept this and move on. Skeptics keep science rigorous and do productive challenge. You do not do this. You only reject any and all established physics.
You do not accept the Moon can rotate and orbit at the same time and also keep the same face pointed to Earth as long as it rotates at the same rate it orbits. You can find this is the case with simple hand held items that you can rotate as you move them in a circular path. I have already done this. You have not.
I gave you clear evidence where a colder object is able to increase the temperature of a heated object (experiment done by Roy Spencer). A skeptic would look at the evidence and think about it. You do not do this. You just continue to peddle your unsupported and flawed opinions and go about telling intelligent people they are wrong.
Now you have a new contrarian twist. You think anyone who accepts the knowledge of an expert in the field is wrong. Weird and strange how your simple mind processes information. Always wrong.
Norman, until you can accept reality, and quit your false accusations, you have nothing to offer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566154
Well articulated again Norman.
Wasted on ClintR since he is a troll.
Svante, please stop trolling.
The silly snowflake Svante gives us another demonstration of blind loyalty to his cult. Like Norman, Svante has nothing to offer except depraved devotion to nonsense.
You’re good at hand-waving sunshine.
You’re good at trolling, snowflake.
Clint has a nice analogy there, but he fails to realize HE is the idiot in it.
“A few minutes later, the bartender changes the channel to Crank TV, and the announcer says The Moon is Not Rotating”
The educated person, knowing something about astronomy and physics, says “That cant be right”.
The idiot believes the announcers on Crank TV are always right.
Troll DREMT only had to be the first to comment on this whole thread to set the course of most of the conversation thereafter on fricking moon rotation.
The rotating moon is a dog chasing its tail, owned by Pavlov.
Sure, barry, it is all my fault. In no way is it just what people want to talk about. They are all talking about it against their will, cruelly forced to by my opening comment. They are not responsible for their own actions.
barry, please stop trolling.
My criticism was general, troll. But no surprise you think it’s all about you.
"Troll DREMT only had to be the first to comment on this whole thread to set the course of most of the conversation thereafter on fricking moon rotation."
"My criticism was general, troll."
Totally general, barry. In no way did you single me out.
Troll DREMT can’t help being a troll. It’s the others that troll DREMT set off that should know better.
They want to talk about it, so they do. If I had not mentioned it, it would still have come up. Usually Bindidon brings it up. I just beat him to it.
But I actually am getting bored of talking about it.
This is my favorite website for vacuous arguments.
Their knowledge of science is vacuous indeed, but their devotion to nonsense is most interesting to observe. Beyond the Moon discussion, they actually believe things like:
* Two ice cubes can make something hotter than one ice cube.
* 160 W/m^2 can turn into 640 W/m^2.
* Ice can warm sunshine
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K
ClintR
As Svante correctly observes about your posting nature on this blog, any attempt at logical reason with you is a wasted effort, but I will again attempt to answer your question:
YOU: “Can two ice cubes make something hotter than one ice cube?
a) Yes
b) No
Your answer please.”
Again the answer is conditional. It depends upon other factors so there is no Yes or No.
I will give you a situation where the answer is yes.
If you have one ice cube (area around 0.0045 m^2) inside a one meter square shell made of material that approaches a black-body. If you add energy to this ice cube to maintain its temperature at 273 K it will emit about 1.4 watts of energy to the larger shell surrounding it. The Shell will then reach a temperature of around 70.5 K. Now add a second ice cube inside and it will also emit 1.4 watts of energy. Now the shell is receiving 2.8 watts and it will reach a temperature of 83.8 K. As you continue to add ice cubes you can come close to reaching 273 K. Each ice cube adds some energy to the shell. So yes in this case adding an ice cube will definitely cause the shell to increase temperature.
In other situations it will not cause a temperature increase.
If you have a heated object, the ice will increase the temperature of a heated object if the surroundings had previously been colder than the ice.
You are not intelligent enough to follow what I posted so it will be a waste of time.
Now it is still correct you are an ignorant contrarian and NOT a valid Skeptic.
Norman, until you can accept reality, and quit your false accusations, you have nothing to offer.
As we can clearly see, Clint only poses vague strawmen lacking specifics.
When you add in the required specificity to make it a valid question with a real answer, then you then give him the answer, Clint is completely caught off-guard, baffled, and runs away.
No troll, I’d be caught off-guard, baffled, and run away if Norman would ever accept reality and if you would stop trolling.
And he still can’t deal with real answers to a real problem, throws ad-hom grenades and runs away.
No other conclusion can be made other than:
CLINTR IS A FRAUD.
norman…” If you add energy to this ice cube to maintain its temperature at 273 K it will emit about 1.4 watts of energy to the larger shell surrounding it”.
What energy are you adding, Norman? The only energy that will affect the ice cube is thermal energy and that needs to be applied directly as heat, or absorbed as infrared and converted to thermal. If you add thermal energy, the temperature of the ice cube must rise, approaching the consistency of water, and it is heated water that is emitting the IR.
Even so, you mentioned nothing about the temperature of the surrounding shell. Unless it is cooled below the temperature of ice, it will absorb none of the IR emitted by the ice. In fact, if the shell is warmer than the ice, it will radiate to the ice and warm it.
Gordon Robertson
NO Gordon think it through. Don’t just knee-jerk react.
YOU: “If you add thermal energy, the temperature of the ice cube must rise, approaching the consistency of water, and it is heated water that is emitting the IR.”
No that statement is not correct. If you do not add energy to an ice cube it will cool and temperature will drop. You can add just enough energy to balance what it is losing via radiant emission and it will remain at a steady state temperature, with an ice cube that has an area of 0.0045 m^2 it will radiate away 1.4 watts of energy. If you add this much energy to the cube it will remain at 272 K. If you add less it will drop in temperature until it reaches a new steady state condition, if you add more it will heat up.
There is no valid law of physics that claims if you add thermal energy the temperature must rise. If you don’t add energy it is more likely the temperature will fall unless you are already at absolute zero.
norman…”If you do not add energy to an ice cube it will cool and temperature will drop”.
Why should it cool? Ice is formed when temperatures drop to about 0C. That means you have to remove heat in a normal environment for humans or there is insufficient solar energy to heat the ice.
If you remove ice cubes from a freezer and leave them in a bowl on the table at room temperature, do they cool? Nope? They will be warmed by the air temperature in the room, which is thermal energy, aka heat.
If you remove them from the freezer in your igloo and leave them in a bowl outside where the ambient temperature is -30C, they will cool to -30C. Next day, if the ambient rises to -20C they will warm to -20C.
It’s simple stuff, Norman, why do you insist on complicating it by referencing ‘energy’ and giving it properties it does not have. The energy is thermal energy, aka heat, is it that hard to say?
Gordon Robertson
You basically just repeated what I stated. In the cased where the ice is warming more energy is added than it radiates away.
Simplify for you. If you put 32 F ice in a location where it receives no energy at all then it will cool to around absolute zero.
If you put 32 F ice in a room at 32 it will not change temperature but it is still radiating energy away. It just gains the same amount it loses.
In a warmer room it will warm up, it will gain more energy than it loses by radiant loss.
Not sure what point you are making. I do not give energy any properties it does not have. Not sure what you are trying to say there.
Well, it took Norman 3 days to answer the simple question. But, he still couldn’t answer with a simple answer. He can’t! If he answers truthfully and directly, he blows the GHE nonsense apart. He’s trapped by reality.
So, let’s tighten the screws a little….
Okay Norman, your kitchen is at 32F. Place an ice cube on your kitchen counter. Place a thermometer as close to the ice cube as possible, without touching. After a minute or two, when the thermometer has stabilized, record the temperature.
Now, place a second ice cube on the other side of the thermometer. Again, as close as possible without touching. After the thermometer stabilizes record the temperature.
Did the second ice cube raise the temperature?
a) Yes
b) No
(Watch for the diversions, excuses, sidetracks, and all Norman’s other tricks. That’s what makes it fun.)
ClintR
In your given scenario the second ice cube does not raise the temperature. I already stated it is is conditional. You have presented a case where additional ice cubes will not alter the temperature reading of a thermometer. This is because the surroundings are all at the same temperature. The ice cubes add no more or less energy to the thermometer than the rest of the kitchen.
If the walls were warmer than the ice cubes additional ice cubes surrounding the thermometer would lead to a lower temperature as the ice would absorb the IR emitted by the walls and other items and not allow this energy to reach the thermometer.
As stated, in your original it can’t be answered with a simple yes or no because it is conditional.
Adding ice cubes can increase the temperature of an object, they can keep it the same temperature or they could lead to cooling. It mainly depends upon the conditions.
Norman answers: “In your given scenario the second ice cube does not raise the temperature.”
A Realist answers: “No”.
The reason Norman can’t answer the simple question with a simple answer is because he must protect his false religion. He must approach reality, without “going there”.
So, let’s tighten the screws a little more:
Norman, in that same scenario, can the second ice cube ever raise the temperature above 32F?
a) Yes
b) No
Warning, warning, strawmen ahead…
Yeah, Norman might use that technique. I can’t predict his exact technique.
But, we know he will avoid reality.
It is likely today that the strongest geomagnetic storm in the new solar cycle will occur after a strong coronal ejection of the mass.
Will volcanic activity increase?
Ren that is the million dollar question. Also weakening geo magnetic field has to amplify given geomagnetic storm events.
ren, nice to see Poland abandoning coal power.
The chart Entropic man sent I needed badly. I like that chart. Very useful. I see at the very end like last 10 years temperatures increasing much.
Very good info. I hope this will be update. Entropic man do send any updates.
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.
Any reply from NASA yet?
The NASA website still reads as follows:
The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around the Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
snape…”Any reply from NASA yet? ”
Yes, and I posted a link to an animation on their site. They claim that their reference to orbiting is wrt the stars. I wrote back that even with the stars as a reference point, the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping one face pointed at the Earth. I have not received a reply from that observation.
NASA needs to remove the phrase about rotating about its axis if they are referencing the apparent rotation wrt the stars. The Moon is not rotating locally even though it points in different directions wrt the stars. I even sent them the jetliner example where it points in a different direct constantly wrt the stars while orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet yet if it rotated in any direction about its COG through 360 degrees locally it would crash.
We have all seen your attempt to divert and deflect and pointed out your fallacy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-558952
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-559131
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-559859
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-559903
And my favorite:
” Eben says:
November 28, 2020 at 3:40 PM
Flesh Gordon just totally debunked himself as he realized the little line nicely proves visually the moon is spinning.”
Bottom line is noone takes you seriously.
You debunked yourself!
“I even sent them the jetliner example where it points in a different direct constantly wrt the stars while orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet yet if it rotated in any direction about its COG through 360 degrees locally it would crash.”
The Earth Orbit Velocity calculator found to orbit the Earth at 35,000 feet that plane would have to travel at 17671 mph. It would circle the globe in 1.4 hours.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv3.html
Maybe jetliners fly instead of orbit.
Craig, since you love pedantry, birds fly, bees fly, but jetliners are flown.
(There’s not much hope trolls will see how silly this is.)
craig t..”Maybe jetliners fly instead of orbit”.
Both the Moon and the jetliner are directed into an orbit by grsvity. One body is moving with constant linear velocity, the Moon, and the other, the jetliner, is moving at a constant linear velocity under its own power.
The jetliner maintains the 35,000 feet due to buoyancy under its wings. If it loses velocity it will lose some buoyancy and begin to drop. If it increases its velocity beyond the velocity required to maintain 35,000 feet it will gain altitude. If it maintains the correct velocity to keep it at 35,000 feet, gravity will guide it into an orbit.
Your orbital calculator is obviously for an unpowered satellite that could not orbit at 35,000 feet due to the effect of air resistance. Alternately, if you could get an aircraft to a height where air resistance was not a factor, it could not fly. It needs air under its wings to remain aloft.
The highest a winged aircraft has flown is 90,000 feet. A low Earth orbit for a satellite starts around 1200 miles. There is simply no way to keep a satellite in orbit when there is significant air resistance.
You’re using the word orbit rather loosely. Winged flight uses uplift from the wings to counter gravity. Objects in orbit don’t resist gravity, they just have enough forward momentum to not hit the Earth.
Any powered flight has to maintain a fixed attitude to travel forward. Satellites, moons, planets, stars and asteroids have no such limitations.
“I have not received a reply from that observation.”
NASA is smart enough to only try explaining things once. Since they put things in space for a living they understand orbits a lot better than any of us here.
Craig, do you understand “orbital motion”?
Do you know that swinging a ball-on-a-string in a circle models orbital motion?
Do you know that walking around a tree models orbital motion?
A string attached to a ball doesn’t apply a force to the ball’s center of mass. That means it applies a torque to the ball as well as a force changing its linear motion.
The only force involved in walking around a tree is the pull of your muscles. It’s possible to walk around a tree while always facing north.
Every model has its limits. Gravity is unique in that the force applied is not accompanied by a torque.
“A string attached to a ball doesn’t apply a force to the ball’s center of mass.”
That’s wrong, Craig. The force is due to the tension in the string, which is centripetal. That force keeps the ball in “orbit”.
“That means it applies a torque to the ball as well as a force changing its linear motion.”
That’s wrong, Craig. The string acts through CoM, so there is no torque. The change of direction is the resultant of the swinging motion and the string tension.
“The only force involved in walking around a tree is the pull of your muscles.”
That’s wrong, Craig. You are forcing a change of direction while also propelling yourself. There are two vectors involved.
“It’s possible to walk around a tree while always facing north.”
But, that’s how idiots walk around trees, Craig. That would be both motions, “orbiting” AND “rotating about an axis”.
“Gravity is unique in that the force applied is not accompanied by a torque.”
BINGO, you got something right Craig. And that’s why gravity can NOT cause axial rotation, or stop axial rotation.
” The string acts through CoM, so there is no torque.”
So the string is not connected to the edge of the ball? I’d like to see how you pull that off.
I could give you an example of a tetherball, but then you want me to find the “edge”.
You don’t have a clue about any of this. Are you Snape?
craig t …”NASA is smart enough to only try explaining things once”.
Got another reply from them today. All they offered was that their frame of reference is centred on the Moon itself, not the Earth. I replied that the change of reference frame makes no difference.
I offered this example. If a NASA astronaut in located on the near side, she is always facing the Earth during the lunar orbit. Her partner, located on the dark side, is always looking out to space. If the Moon did rotate once about its axis, the two astronauts would have to change place at mid-orbit so that the one facing Earth would now be facing space, and vice-versa.
I also included a modified version of my coin experiment. I replace the Earth coin with a wooden disk and the Moon coin with the same. As I laid out the coin experiment, both coins lie side by side in front of you on a table with the earth coin on the left. With the wooden disks, I have taped the Earth disk to the table and inserted a pin in its centre. I have done the same with the Moon coin, leaving it free to move.
I then tie a string around both pins so they are connected. So the string extends from the centre of the Earth coin, to 3 o’clock on the same, then through 9 o’clock on the Moon coin where it is tied to the pin at the Moon coin’s centre. The disks don’t have to be touching and the string can be as long as you like.
I then inserted two pins on each side of the string on the Moon disk at 9 o’clock to ensure the disk cannot turn around its centre. As an added touch, I drew a line under the string from the Moon disk centre to 9 o’clock. The idea of the line is that it will point in all directions of the compass as the Moon disk orbits the Earth disk.
Then I rotate the Moon disk around the Earth disk pin keeping the string taut. As the Moon disk rotates about the Earth pin, the line on the Moon disk moves as predicted but the Moon disk cannot rotate about its pin since the pins on either side of the string prevent it.
It would be the same if the Moon disk was big enough for me to stand on it while watching the Earth disk during rotation about the Earth disk. I am standing astride the rope/string so the disk cannot turn about its pins/axis. I would always be looking straight along the string at the Earth disk but I will also be looking in all directions of the compass throughout the orbit.
I don’t expect a reply, they have too much to lose by admitting they were wrong.
craig t…”So the string is not connected to the edge of the ball? Id like to see how you pull that off”.
The motion is complex. If you begin with the ball hanging at your side, you have to pull it up in an arc to overcome gravity and get the ball into orbit. As you swing it around your head, the ball will acquire sufficient linear momentum to try moving in a straight line. The string alters that linear momentum to a curved motion just as Earth’s gravity alters the Moon’s linear velocity vector into an orbit.
However, you still have to supply sufficient upward motion to the string to overcome gravity. The upward motion is subtle but required. Obviously, if you fail to apply centripetal force, the ball will spin down. So the action on the string requires at least two varying motions to keep the ball in orbit in a horizontal plane.
Gordon Squeals:
If the Moon did rotate once about its axis, the two astronauts would have to change place at mid-orbit so that the one facing Earth would now be facing space, and vice-versa.
That is simply false. Where is that ever mentioned as a requirement for rotation in any sort of reference? That is your own personal false interpretation of rotation, just like your false interpretation for curvilinear translation. The requirement would be that the position vector for the astronaut on the edge of the moon make a 360 degree rotation about the moon’s center of mass for every one orbit about the earth, which is what would happen.
Gordon moans:
I then inserted two pins on each side of the string on the Moon disk at 9 oclock to ensure the disk cannot turn around its centre.
Wrong. All you have done is to ensure the moon disk cannot rotate wrt the string.
This sounds like the ball on a string experiment except you have a disk whirling around on a string with an earth disk fixed at the center. I already proved with my ball on string calculations that the ball does rotate on its own axis when whirled around on a string.
https://postimg.cc/dLqkKP24
The red/blue line through the ball makes one 360 rotation wrt the compass centered on the ball for every orbit of the ball..
…and ftop_t already proved that the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass.
DREMT: “…and ftop_t already proved that the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass.”
A ball on a string has no way to rotate on its own center of mass.
Good, Craig, you are making progress. You may have noticed that there are those (on your side of the debate) who are arguing that the ball is rotating about its own center of mass. Of course, those people are wrong.
Craig,
You could not even figure out the the tension in the string acts through the ball’s center of mass. And you expect me to accept your declaration?? LMAO.
I already mathematically proved that the ball on a string rotates on its own axis. Kinematics is hard for some people to understand. The flat earth society will gladly accept your membership request.
See what I mean, Craig?
DREMT: “You may have noticed that there are those (on your side of the debate) who are arguing that the ball is rotating about its own center of mass.”
SkepticGoneWild: “You could not even figure out the the tension in the string acts through the ball’s center of mass. And you expect me to accept your declaration?? LMAO.”
I don’t expect anyone to accept what I say without looking into it.
It was sloppy to say the ball was not rotating. From an inertial frame of reference the ball is rotating while it goes around. I should have said the ball is not free to rotate separate from the force of the tether.
The string is connected to the side of the ball. Rest the ball on the ground with slack in the string, then raise the string until the ball is off the ground, The ball rotates on its center of mass until the string lines up with that center. Until that time the string applied a torque to the ball.
Like all objects the ball would not rotate until a torque acts on it. As the ball swings the string applies just enough torque to turn the ball until the side the string is attached to faces the center.
“It was sloppy to say the ball was not rotating. From an inertial frame of reference the ball is rotating while it goes around.”
No, you were right the first time. Regardless of appearances from a specific reference frame, the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass.
The tension in the string for a ball whirling on a string or tetherball acts through the ball’s center of mass, therefore cannot induce any torque.
Here’s my ball on a string calcs:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564609
The ball in the above example had a given orbital angular velocity of 1 rad/s about origin “O”. That is the first axis of rotation. The second axis of rotation was in relation to the spin angular velocity of the ball around its center of mass. And the string does not wrap around the ball because the end of the string and the ball where it attaches have the same angular velocity.
SGW, you can’t break down a motion into a translation and a rotation, and then turn around and call it two rotations.
“I could give you an example of a tetherball, but then you want me to find the ‘edge’.”
Take a look at a tetherball:
https://i2.wp.com/oldsaltfarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/tetherball-9-logo-662×1000.jpg
The force transferred through the rope acts on the top of the ball, not the center. When going around the pole, the top can only face inward. There is no way a tetherball could rotate on its axis while going around the pole.
Unless you’re saying the Earth cannot rotate on its axis while orbiting the Sun, I’d say a ball on a string doesn’t answer about the Moon’s rotation.
“There is no way a tetherball could rotate on its axis while going around the pole”
I’m glad you agree that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. It has only one axis of rotation, at the pole, which it revolves around. If it had two axes of rotation, one at the pole, and one going through the ball itself, you would see all sides of the ball from the central pole, and the string would have to be somehow wrapping around the ball.
“Im glad you agree that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.”
I’m saying that the torque from the rope rotates the ball until the ball’s center of gravity lines up with the rope. That’s why a ball on a string is not a great model for on object in orbit.
…and you are saying that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, which contradicts many of your fellow Spinners. Good for you!
Craig (possibly Snape) STILL doesn’t get it: “Unless you’re saying the Earth cannot rotate on its axis while orbiting the Sun, I’d say a ball on a string doesn’t answer about the Moon’s rotation.”
Craig, there are so many things wrong with that one sentence —
1) No one is saying Earth “cannot rotate on its axis”. That is either your ignorance or a failed attempt to obfuscate.
2) The ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion. That’s all. People that can think for themselves realize the ball and Moon have the same basic motion–orbting but NOT rotating about an axis.
Like Snape, you have a history of making some really stupid statements. We shouldn’t have to explain to you how a ball-on-a-string works. We shouldn’t have to teach you about tether balls.
Unless you can come up with something intelligent, I will ignore any future nonsense from you. Think, before typing!
There are already enough idiots that I am responding to.
Samplings from the world of pedagogy:
From a High School textbook:
Earth Science: The Physical Setting, Second Edition, which follows the New York State Core Curriculum, and is based on National Standards. It is an introduction to the study of Earth Science.
A curious feature of our moon is that its period of rotation and revolution are the same, about 27 days. As a result, the same side of the moon always faces Earth. This is why features of the far side of the moon were unknown until the Russians sent a satellite around the moon to take photographs early in the space race.
Of course we have already seen the Washington-Lincoln experiment used to teach fifth graders about the 1:1 spin-orbit motion of the Earth-Moon system.
And last but not least there are the MGR and ball-on-string experiments of Flat Earth University FEU (pronounced phew).
Yeah Snape, it’s sad. Kids aren’t being taught science anymore. They’re just being indoctrinated with cult teachings. They come out of school with all kinds of garbage in their heads.
Some probably believe CO2 can heat the planet!
snape…it’s sad that kids today cannot rely on being told the truth. They are brainwashed about anthropogenic warming and when they try to question it they are kicked out of class.
I can imagine a kid being told about the Big Bang THEORY and questioning how an entire universe could suddenly appear out of nothing in a fraction of a second. He/she would be kicked out of school for questioning the propaganda.
That’s how the politically-correct operate. That’s what we can expect from Sleazy Joe Biden and his misfits, 4 years of nonsense that will make Orwell’s Big Brother appear like a comic book.
It’s not just school kids, it’s going on with renowned scientists. When Peter Dueberg, a world renowned expert on retroviruses, questioned the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS, his career was ruined. Duesberg was at the top of his field, having isolated the first cancer gene. He was rewarded by the National Academy of Science by being inducted as the youngest scientist ever to receive that honour, yet his peers and employer had his career ruined.
You clowns, the alarmists, support that sort of scientific Nazism. Norman and a few others have defended a scientist being ostracized for expressing skepticism about a stupid theory yet you all defend NOAA for blatant cheating as they fudge the temperature record to show warming where none exists.
It’s little wonder that such stupidity is being taught to kids about the Moon. They admit no one had seen the other side of the Moon till the Russians yet they fail to understand that a rotating Moon would require the far side to be seen by the hslf-orbit point.
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once per orbit without exposing the far side.
Another incoherent and conspiracy theoretically tinged wordsalad from Mr. Creosote https://tinyurl.com/Monsieur-Creosote
You claim to be an Engineer, but nothing you ever say lends credence to that claim. Cargo cult science, that is your school.
You forgot alcohol in your “tinge” factor.
Very sad if that’s the case.
tyson snape…”You claim to be an Engineer, but nothing you ever say lends credence to that claim”.
That’s because you lack the physics to understand what I’m talking about. Worse still, you fail to see that.
All of these elucubrations about the moon are delicious.
For example, imagine a planetary system around us in which the earth, instead of the sun, orbits a giant planet that is in the same place as the sun, with the same shape and weight.
Let’s call this huge planet “Sunaia”.
Now imagine that the little inventor Tesla is staying on Sunaia and would be looking at the earth.
Wouldn’t he say that the earth cannot rotate on its axis for exactly the same reasons that he gave to decree that the moon cannot rotate on its axis?
Be honest, people!
J.-P. D.
JD, what do you believe Tesla’s “reasons that he gave to decree that the moon cannot rotate on its axis” are?
That would help us to understand some of your confusion…maybe.
Tesla had economical (and mental) problems in his old age, that’s probably why he wrote that article for a hobbyist magazine.
Tesla correctly denounced your nonsense, snowflake. That’s why you have to attempt to denigrate him.
But reality always wins. And that makes you a loser.
It’s just how things were sunshine.
Tesla was not at his best in his early sixties.
How old are you?
Snowflake, your legacy is that of an anonymous trolling idiot.
Compare that to Tesla’s legacy.
Sunshine, you’re describing yourself again.
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?
No wonder you’re such a snowflake.
That comment describes your own effort sunshine.
Svante, please stop trolling.
That comment describes your own effort moonbeam.
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yes, he would, provided that the Earth rotates once for each orbit around Sunaia.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
That was not quite my point. I don’t speak about synchronous rotation for Earth and Sunaia. This is secondary here.
My point is: Suppose Sunaia rotates around a giant Sun far far away, so Earth is a satellite orbiting around Sunaia, and no longer a primary planet orbiting around the star.
Would Tesla, standing on Sunaia, pretend that Earth cannot rotate on its internal axis, like it very well does right now?
J.-P. D.
JD, would you say your confusion is worse than your desperation, or vice versa?
binny…”Wouldnt he say that the earth cannot rotate on its axis for exactly the same reasons that he gave to decree that the moon cannot rotate on its axis?”
The first question is why would you be so stupid as to ask such a question. Obviously, Tesla would note immediately that the Earth was showing different faces all of the time as it orbited.
Manifestly, Robertson, the ignorant boaster, did not understand why I did not follow TYSON MCGUFFIN saying
” Yes, he would, provided that the Earth rotates once for each orbit around Sunaia. ”
And nobody, Robertson, really nobody can know whether or not Earth spins while orbiting around Sunaia.
Again: that was not the point. The point was the question: Would little Tesla, when looking at Earth from Sunaia, develop the same nonsense as he did for the Moon when looking at it from the Earth?
No, Robertson. Tesla did not primarily pretend that the Moon cannot spin because it always shows the same face to us.
That is what YOU pretend.
He gave quite different reasons for the spin allegedly being impossible.
Thus, from the point of view of Tesla, it is impossible for Earth to spin while orbiting Sunaia… and the same holds of course for all planets.
But… to understand what I mean, you definitely are too stubborn.
J.-P. D.
J.-P. D.
Leitwolf
You wrote upthread:
1. ” There is something that confuses me. If you look up the site below, they state an extreme warming of the Arctic (80N+) in the winter (+6-8K vs. early 1960s), none at all however during the summer. ”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php
To that, DMI gave you via barry an excellent answer.
*
Then you write further:
2. ” The UAH record on the other side shows nothing like it. Yes, there is significant warming in the Artic (more than anywhere else), but it is about 1K or a bit less both for winter and summer. ”
*
This is a typical mistake I often see at WUWT: commenters confounding
– DMI’s data collected above 80N
and
– UAH’s Arctic data collected between 60N and 82.5 N (no data available above in 6.0 LT).
To obtain a correct comparison, you have to evaluate UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data located in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Here is a chart of UAH Arctic 60+ compared with UAH Arctic 80+:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18urljHHZenfRTtHAPSpCDJm3h_BxLGS9/view
Here you see that UAH’s Arctic trend for 60N-82.5N is twice higher than that for the latitude band 80N-82.5N.
Trends for 1979-2019, in C / decade
60-82.5: 0.25 +- 0.02
80-82.5: 0.07 +- 0.01
*
And though the difference between winter (DJF) and summer (JJA) data is smaller than that shown by DMI, this difference nonetheless is visible:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FkBQF7G3yBM7cVZfx_KbZM9gZ2GcfT-4/view
Trends for 1979-2019, in C / decade
DJF: 0.08 +- 0.01
JJA: 0.04 +- 0.01
*
For a 80+ surface mix of GHCN daily (only 3 or 4 stations there, duh) and HadISST1’s 1 degree grid, you have for 1979-2019, a trend of…
0.89 +- 0.09 C /decade.
For sure you would see here a huge difference between DJF and JJA too.
J.-P. D.
Typo, should read
” Here you see that UAHs Arctic trend for 60N-82.5N is over three times higher than that for the latitude band 80N-82.5N. “
tyson snape…” Eben says:
November 28, 2020 at 3:40 PM
Flesh Gordon just totally debunked himself as he realized the little line nicely proves visually the moon is spinning.”
****
Sadly, although Eben shows promise as a catastrophic global warming skeptic, he undoes all the good he has offered with an abysmal ignorance of physics.
That little line was part of a full radial line from the centre of the Earth extending through the Moon. Eben utterly missed the point I was making about only a portion of the radial line being shown which gives the false impression that the Moon is rotating about its centre.
When the full line is shown, connected to the Earth’s centre, an intelligent observer immediately sees that the line portion is actually turning about the Earth and not its own centre. As a result, it is impossible for it to rotate about the Moon’s centre.
I have to shake my head in wonderment at the sheer stupidity you spinners show in your inability to understand basic logic. You are all so hung up on the preconceived thoughts conditioned into your minds that you have lost the ability to look at reality objectively.
This is hilarious. Gordon lecturing us about physics when he STILL can’t comprehend curvilinear translation. Every definition I have provided were either from lecture notes from prestigious universities or textbooks, and ALL have the same definition for curvilinear translation.
And then there was his stupid idea that there was a conversion factor for radians to length.
https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS
Box B isolates the moon’s local rotation. It’s staring you right in your face. Even a 5th grader could figure this out.
C is curvilinear translation. Now do you get it? Probably not.
A is rotating on its own axis, counter-clockwise, once per counter-clockwise orbit.
B is not rotating on its own axis.
C is rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per counter-clockwise orbit.
leitwolf…”The UAH record on the other side shows nothing like it. Yes, there is significant warming in the Artic (more than anywhere else), but it is about 1K or a bit less both for winter and summer”.
You have heard from two alarmists now here’s something from a skeptic.
There are two things to consider: what is the overall warming and what is meant by Arctic warming? The overall warming would have to be related to a base but how could you establish such a base since the Arctic has little or no solar input during much of the year.
If you look at the UAH global contour maps, which show warming contours all over the globe, it becomes apparent that the Arctic has pockets of warming that are up to 5C warmer than the global average over a period. However, those pockets move around month to month and are never in the same location. Therefore, it’s ingenuous to speak of Arctic warming when the warming is contained in pockets that move around.
Can CO2 cause warming only in select locations that relocate? Roy addressed the cause of that briefly and I don’t recall exactly what he said. As I recall, he related such warming to warmer water pockets in the North Atlantic Oscillation infiltrating the Arctic and causing slightly warmer air in those pockets.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
So, does Arctic warming have any meaning related to the anthropogenic theory? Doubtful. At the height of winter when no solar input is available, temperature can drop to -60C and the Arctic Ocean is covered with 10 feet of ice. What sense does it make to claim that a pocket of warmer air, raising the temperature in that region to -55C, is related to anthropogenic causes?
A month later, that pocket has moved from being over Greenland to being over Siberia, or Alaska. It’s far more likely the warming is being caused by warmer water from the Atlantic (or maybe the Pacific) infiltrating the Arctic.
In mid-winter, with temps as low as -60C, the North Pole suddenly warms to 0C. Why?? How can CO2 explain that? One thing that can explain it is the two circulating currents in the Arctic, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. They are capable of circulating warmer air from the Pacific/Atlantic to the North Pole. Briefly!!! Two days later the NP is back to -30C.
You can’t help bang your drum, can you?
Neither Leitwolf nor I were talking about CO2, just why the Arctic temp record is different for two different institutes.
Apparently you don’t understand the concept of averaging, or you would not have made the asinine comment about different pockets of warming moving around.
Well done at pointing out weather.
None of what you said answers Leitwolf’s question.
The answer to it is that UAH and DMI plot monthly average temperatures for different regions, which they both call the Arctic. They also use different instruments.
UAH Arctic region is 60N to 85N, satellite record.
DMI Arctic regtion is 80N to 90N, surface thermometer record, the area is mostly icebound year-round.
Gordon Robertson
A possible examination for the hot spots in the Arctic and the cold spots the US has been experiencing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo
A less zonal jet stream is indicative of colder temperatures in the lower latitudes not higher temperatures and also greater snow cover.
In addition a more meridional atmospheric circulation is associated with low solar due to UV light changes supporting higher heights in the Arctic regions relative to lower latitudes.
Global warming should result in a more zonal atmospheric circulation not less zonal.
So she has it backwards, as has been the case for several years.
Now overall higher heights all over the globe are indicative of warming and vice versa. That part I agree with.
AGW THEORY- predicted a contracting polar vortex and great zonal wind flows.
It did not predict a meridional atmospheric circulation.
Any one know the latest on tropospheric hot spot AGW theory also predicted? Last I know never has come about.
GREATER
Salvatore
I am not so much interested in such media hotspot corners, in which many people ignorantly and unscientifically fight each other, without having even a clue of what happens.
But maybe this interests you:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/
and from there:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
J.-P. D.
thanks
It was found in the radiosonde data in 2014.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot
Gordon Robertson says:
December 9, 2020 at 6:33 PM
tyson snape…”You claim to be an Engineer, but nothing you ever say lends credence to that claim”.
That’s because you lack the physics to understand what I’m talking about. Worse still, you fail to see that.
***
#If you are indeed an Engineer then, you are not a very good one.
You said [December 7 2020 at 1:00 PM](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566726) that you know how to draw a free-body diagram; if that were true you would know that a free-body diagram is used not only to identify the external forces acting on an object but also the moments those forces may exert. It is *unfathomable* that a good Engineer upon analysis of a free-body diagram of the spheroidal shape of the Moon, in frictionless space, subjected to Earth’s distributed gravitational force field, would not surmise that non-zero moments exist. A good Engineer would then collect the data necessary to calculate those moments and on final analysis conclude that for the Moon’s shape the primary degree of freedom is rotation about its principal axis.
If you cannot do this analysis, then you are not a very good Engineer.
#This type of problem is a mainstay of the professional Engineer’s registration examination; all good Engineers know that.
Gordon Robertson, I would also ask, are you a Physicist or an Engineer? There is a very significant difference between the two and you don’t seem to grasp that. From your posts I suspect that you are more of a philosopher of science, neither a Scientist nor an Engineer, the team mascot rather than a player.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Never and never is/was Robertson an engineer, let alone a scientist.
He lacks in behavior, experience and formal education all what most of my former colleagues have shown during my engineering activity.
One exception to them I remember: a man who behaved superficially all the time, who criticized everyone, spoke a lot but did little, and whose contributions, however, largely did not meet the expectations of his colleagues.
To discredit, denigrate, distort and lie: in that he was excellent.
Robertson’s perfect copy!
J.-P. D.
To me the fundamental canons of the Engineer’s code of ethics boil down to:
never lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do
Je suis d’accord avec vous.
“Gordon” is of course neither, though he believes the rest of the world can be swayed by his claims. I actually don’t think he intends to “fool” anyone…he believes his lies, and lives in an isolation chamber. When knowledgeable and experienced people chime in, he dismisses them through convoluted, wet toilet paper arguments.
This is the comfort zone of someone too silly to understand that they expose their own ignorance in each dubious claim they assert. He makes references to graduating from UBC Engineering school but it is untrue.
See also: his misunderstanding of HIV and virology.
He is exhausting but will never examine his own thinking. He undermines sites such as this.
Gordon has a knack for drawing out trolls. They come from far and wide, trying to insult, accuse, slander, and nullify Gordon. Their hatred probably causes them so much stress their health is impaired.
Is it Gordon that bothers them so much, or is it reality?
ClintR says:
“Is it Gordon that bothers them so much, or is it reality?”
It’s the difference between those two.
Clint continues to live in opposite world, where everyone has a goatee, and the good guys are evil..
“We have been taught that the apparent orbit of the Sun, planets, and stars (but not the Moon!) around the Earth are all optical illusions, that it is in fact the Earth beneath our feet which moves, and our eyes that deceive us. Special exception is made for the Moon, however, which is said to revolve around Earth just as it appears. Since we only ever see one side of the Moon, we have been taught this is because the Moon’s supposed 10.3 mph West to East rotation combined with its 2,288 mph orbit of Earth just happens to be the EXACT motion and speed necessary to perfectly cancel out the Earth’s supposed 1,000 mph East to West rotation and 67,000 mph orbit of the Sun, thereby creating the perpetual dark side of the Moon illusion! Oh really!?”
The source of this familiar quote is:
“The Flat-Earth Conspiracy” by Eric Dubay
November 9, 2014. ISBN: 978-1-312-66448-7
As we suspected there are Flat-Earthers in our midst!
Thanks federally funded basic science, for the knowledge and skill base that made the the COVID vaccines possible!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-billion-dollar-covid-vaccines-basic-government-funded-science-laid-the-groundwork/
nate…”Thanks federally funded basic science, for the knowledge and skill base that made the the COVID vaccines possible!”
No one has the slightest idea whether the vaccines will do anything. Fauci has let the cat out of the bag by pointing out they are not aimed at eradicating the virus but aimed at easing symptoms. Lock downs will continue despite the vaccines.
The basis of the vaccine is that people who had no symptoms were inoculated and it was observed they did not get covid. Duh!!! And a Homer Simpson DOH!!!.
Moderna has never created a vaccine for a human nor has it created a medicine for humans. It’s trials began in March 2020 with two strengths of vaccine. In the group using the full strength vaccine, 100% of the recipients experienced severe side effects. In the milder strain, 80% experienced severe side effects. There is no indication of long term effects.
Essentially, the trials will begin in earnest with the general public. We will be the the Guinea pigs. The first Guineas pigs will be the frail elderly and I fully expect a lot of them to die from the vaccine. According to the theory, it actually increases the viral load to allegedly allow the immune system to get used to it.
I think these people and the politicians advocating the vaccines should be in jail. The worry is that the mRNA used in the vaccine will permanently alter the human genome. Researchers are trying to assure us that won’t happen but they have no scientific proof. It’s known that the effect of such genetic manipulation can be temporary or permanent.
If it alters the human genome, no one has the slightest idea what will happen. The alteration could lead to cancer, adverse immune reactions, and mutagenesis (cell mutation).
The process of genetically modifying an organism is called transfection. That’s what they are doing with this vaccine, they are modifying the natural process in a cell to make it do what it would not do naturally. To do that, it has to inject information into the cell’s DNA to make it produce a code for a protein that the hopefully represents a virus. Then, the immune system is supposed to get used to the proteins and take care of them.
Human cells have protective membranes around them to protect the nucleus where the DNA is located from unwanted intruders. To get the RNA into the cell they need to use chemicals that compromise the membrane. It’s known that this process can lead to unexpected disease and abnormalities in the target cells.
If the injected material is in the form of a virus (viral transfection), the virus can only deliver small amounts of DNA into the cell with the risk of creating random breaks in the cell, changes in cell structure, and mutations.
The entire problem here is that the RNA presumed to be from a virus cannot be verified. They don’t have the actual virus so they can check its RNA and verify their theory. If they are wrong, and it’s very likely they are wrong, they are forcing the body to produce proteins for it’s own RNA. So, the immune system starts attacking itself, a process known as auto-immune disease.
This vaccine represents a very serious threat to humans and the dangers are being minimized. Normally, such studies would take 5 to 6 years and with this vaccine the process has been accelerated to a few months.
For what? Here in Canada, 13,000 people have died in 2020, allegedly from covid. That’s 0.034% of the Canadian population…34/1000ths of 1%. Even in the US, the number of deaths represents about 0.06%. In Canada, out of 500,000 people tested, only 3% tested positive.
So if the Moon doesn’t rotate why is it so stable in its orientation? Every other natural object in space either tumbles or is stabilized by rotating on its axis.
You STILL don’t understand orbital motion.
Is the ball-on-a-string unstable?
Clint squeals like a sissy:
All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity!
This is something every student learns in a high school physics or science class:
https://pixfeeds.com/images/41/608495/1280-increasing-tangential-velocity.png
The farther out you are on a rotating object, the larger the tangential velocity.
But our boy genius here has a different idea. Probably the first of its kind. But does he present any calculations??? No!!!!
So. Bottom line. You cannot trust anything this clown says.
You’re still trying to use Kinematics for orbital motion. That’s why you keep getting the wrong answers.
You need to understand orbital motion. The simple analogy is swinging a ball on a string in a circle.
Wikipedia says:
“Kinematics is used in astrophysics to describe the motion of celestial bodies and collections of such bodies.”
Maybe that’s why many astrophysicists don’t understand orbital motion? They learned their physics from wikipedia.
Like you….
craig t…”So if the Moon doesnt rotate why is it so stable in its orientation? Every other natural object in space either tumbles or is stabilized by rotating on its axis”.
You’re thinking of a spinning top where its stability is based on its rotation, like a gyro. A body in orbit does not require rotation to stay upright or remain stable. Besides, the planets rotate so slowly, their rotation velocity would do little to maintain stability.
Think of the Moon moving in free space, nowhere near a planet. It is not rotating and is moving in a straight line with linear velocity. It approaches Earth where it comes under the influence of Earth gravitational field at some point. There are three possibilities.
1)if it’s linear velocity is too high, gravity will bend its path into a curve, it will move around the Earth and be shot off on a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory.
2)if it’s velocity is too slow, it will likely be dragged off its path into a collision course.
3)if it’s linear velocity is within the bounds required to go into orbit, it will be located in an orbit commensurate with its velocity.
Since it was not rotating in free flight, there is no reason for it to begin rotating during orbit. For the same reason, if it is not rotating in orbit, and it is suddenly released for whatever reason, there’s no reason for it to begin rotating.
Spinners have seen the video with the astronaut in space rotating a ball on a string then releasing it. The ball is turning so they have concluded it must have been rotating while being rotated on a string even though the string prevents local rotation.
What they fail to understand is that a ball on a string under tension, when the string is released, is subjected to recoil forces from the string retracting. Also, the ball is affected by the trailing string, which adds a slight torque to the ball causing it to rotate.
Gordon yelps:
The ball is turning so they have concluded it must have been rotating while being rotated on a string even though the string prevents local rotation.
Wrong. Gordon once again makes up his own requirements for rotation, just like he does for curvilinear translation. I already proved the ball whirling around on a string rotates about its own axis. All the string does is forces the object into a circular orbit. It also forces the object into a spin angular velocity that matches its orbital angular velocity. The position vector for a point on the far side edge of the ball makes a 360 degree rotation about the local axis at the ball’s center of mass per every orbit of the ball.
Folks. Gordon is a fake engineer. He has so many aspects of simple kinematics wrong that it’s obvious he never went to engineering school.
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation.
SGW, how many times do I have to tell you: 1) Orbital motion is NOT covered under Kinematics, and 2) If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string wraps around it.
It’s almost as if you enjoy being wrong.
Clint squeals like a 9 year old girl:
All points on the ball have the same instantaneous velocity!
High school student taking physics learned that v=wr. But our flat earthers like Clint and DREMT apparently know better. Apparently per Clint and DREMT the tangential velocities on a rotating object are identical!!! Wow! That is hilarious.
Not surprising, though. Since they have EVERYTHING backwards when it comes to physics.
Clint yelps:
If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string wraps around it.
And as my calculations for the ball whirling on a string problem indicate, the end of the string and the near side edge of the ball have the same velocity, so the string does not wrap around the ball.
Still waiting for your velocity calculations for the ball!!! That will NEVER happen because basically you’re an idiot.
Your “calculations” are wrong because you don’t know what you’re doing. And you can’t think. The ball-on-a-string is obviously NOT rotating about its axis, but you believe it is. Simple observation proves you wrong, but you ignore that reality.
Kinematics fails you every time, when used with orbital motion. The equation v = ωr gives you incorrect results for an orbiting object, where “r” is radius of orbit. In pure orbital motion all points on the body have the same instantaneous velocity. Otherwise, the body would distort.
Why do you doubt that definition from Cornell U.? You found it, then you ran away from it. That definition tells you Kinematics cannot be used for orbital motion, because vectors are affecting the motion. Why do you run from reality?
skeptic…”And as my calculations for the ball whirling on a string problem indicate, the end of the string and the near side edge of the ball have the same velocity, so the string does not wrap around the ball”.
Physicist David Bohm once stated that an equation with no physical reality to back it is garbage. You have no physical reality to back your calculations therefore they are garbage.
If you observe a ball whirling on a string, you will note that the string does not wrap up around the ball.
I performed the EQUATIONS for the above reality. The solution to the problem indicated the ball rotates on its own axis. The equations also indicated that the tangential velocity for the end of the string is the same as for the near side edge of the ball where the string connects. That means they don’t move wrt each other, and therefore the string does not wrap around the ball.
I realize this is way above Gordon’s intelligence capacity.
And Clint continues to use his personal definitions that the field of science does not accept.
And Clint STILL has not provided calculations that indicate the velocity for the near and far side of the ball are equal.
Clint’s comments are null and void of any value whatsoever.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation.
skeptic…”I already proved the ball whirling around on a string rotates about its own axis. All the string does is forces the object into a circular orbit. It also forces the object into a spin angular velocity that matches its orbital angular velocity”.
Not worth responding to such nonsense.
Coming from a clown who STILL does not understand what curvilinear translation is, I’ll take that as a complement.
Craig T
” So if the Moon doesn’t rotate why is it so stable in its orientation? ”
Exactly. This link between spin-orbit coupling and stability has been mentioned in several publications, which all are here denigrated / ignored by a small group of contrarian Pseudoskeptics posting their trash here all the time.
Either it’s due to Cassini who did everything wrong, or it’s NASA who does it even worse, or it has to do with ‘libration’ and not with ‘rotation about the center of mass’.
And anyway: all material presented is by definition ‘appeal to authority’, with the surprising exception of a tremendously superficial post by Tesla in 1919, and a few local publications by Serbians.
*
Currently, I’m reading a long paper written in 1748 by Tobias Mayer, and published in 1750:
Treatise on Moon’s rotation about its axis
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
The very first thing you understand is that the paper has NOTHING to do with… libration.
*
When I’m thru, I’ll post an abstract of this great work, in which Mayer describes his tough way to prove Moon’s roatation about its internal axis, based on
– calculations of Moon’s shape and apparent surface, showing them sufficient similar to a sphere resp. a circle, by using both Newton’s laws of gravity and observations;
– observations of Moon spots with a telescope equipped with a micrometer of his own design;
– a series of succeeding coordinate transformations, based on trigonometry and algebra, until a selenocentric reference is reached, allowing him to compute axis inclination, rotation period and selenocentric coordinates of the observed Moon spots.
It’s hard to read (no: not because of the old German notation and typography, I got great help at home from my lady).
*
Mayer successfully computed
– for the axial tilt: 1.483 degree (current value: 1.542)
– for the rotation period: 27.321666 days (current value: 27.321661).
WOW. Could have been worse…
J.-P. D.
JD, Craig throws his garbage against the wall and you go ga-ga! You should go upthread and seen how many stupid things he has tried. He clearly doesn’t understand the issues.
But, maybe that’s why you identify with him….
binny…”This link between spin-orbit coupling and stability has been mentioned in several publications, which all are here denigrated / ignored by a small group of contrarian Pseudoskeptics posting their trash here all the time”.
I am still awaiting your scientific rebuttal of what the alleged contrarian pseudo-skeptics have PROVED. All I have seen from you is an appeal to authorities whose work you fail to understand.
I have already pointed out the errors in Mayer’s work. He was a mathematician, not an engineer. He tried to calculate the rotation of the Moon using individual particles and got it wrong. He applied forces like centrifugal force that does not exist. In essence, he applied a statistical analysis to each particle but his understanding of the forces involved was wrong.
All of your authorities figures failed to see what Tesla saw, that lunar rotation about its own axis is an illusion. It appears to turn but they authority figues have not looked at the problem closely enough to see they are fooling themselves.
They should have taken a clue from the fact that the Moon presents the same face to the Earth through its entire orbit. It should have occurred to your authorities that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis while keeping the same face to the Earth. Basic math and trigonometry reveal that fact clearly.
Not one of you spinners has taken the time to do that. You rush off to authority figures or you get into intangibles like reference frames. Not one of you has taken the time to prove your case using math and trig. Had any one of you done that you’d see immediately why the Moon can’t rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
Equally obviously, your authority figures PRESUMED the Moon rotated on a local axis. Only Tesla took the time to work it out using physics and math and proved them all wrong.
Robertson
I just paste your ridiculous statement:
” Not one of you has taken the time to prove your case using math and trig. ”
You didn’t even read my comment, let alone would you be able to understand what Mayer wrote – even if he had written it in today’s English.
Simply because you lack any scientific education.
You are such a dumb ass, Robertson, that you even didn’t understand what Tobias Mayer used to prove Moon’s spin: trigonometry, with a little bit of algebra.
Prove us that you have balls, Robertson, and post your ignorant, incompetent and stubborn trash at WUWT, Climate Audit or Climate Etc!
J.-P. D.
binny…”you even didnt understand what Tobias Mayer used to prove Moons spin: trigonometry, with a little bit of algebra”.
I read the gist of his argument and in it he claimed a centrifugal force that does not exist. He also claimed internal forces on the particles making up the Moon.
Like I said, he was a mathematician with a poor understanding of orbital physics. He did not understand rigid body kinematics.
Tesla did, and he proved the Moon does not rotate on its axis. He used the kinetic energy of a rotating body to prove it. None of your authority figures did anything like that, they fell for the illusion that the Moon must be rotating on its axis because it points in different directions through an orbit.
You, of course, are too stupid to look at the problem closely and see the truth for yourself.
Robertson
1. ” I am still awaiting your scientific rebuttal of what the alleged contrarian pseudo-skeptics have PROVED. ”
You and your equally uneducated altar boys NEVER proved anything.
You just guess about simplest analogies like coins, race horses balls-on-a-string, and do not understand why they all don’t match the reality.
2. ” Equally obviously, your authority figures PRESUMED the Moon rotated on a local axis. ”
This, Robertson, is one more of your stupid lies.
Tobias Mayer started his entire work from scratch, because he didn’t trust in the results published by his predecessor: Domenico Cassini, because these results lacked, in his mind, accuracy and precision he had expected.
I repeat: even if Mayer’*s work was written in English, you wouldn’t be able to understand 1 % of it.
All you know is what you read in contrarian blogs, and that makes out of you a thorough ignorant of science, and of history of science as well.
J.-P. D.
binny…”You just guess about simplest analogies like coins, race horses balls-on-a-string, and do not understand why they all dont match the reality”.
No guessing, I laid it out so even an idiot could understand it, but imbeciles like you and skeptic lack the intelligence of an idiot or a moron.
Gordon shrieks:
Not one of you has taken the time to prove your case using math and trig. Had any one of you done that you’d see immediately why the Moon can’t rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
I did exactly what you stated with my ball whirling on a string calculations, since the ball present the same face towards the center of rotation just like the moon. My calculations proved the ball rotates about its local axis.
You just claim that the various animations presented to prove our point are an optical illusion. LMAO.
Why should I accept your stupid word for it when YOU can’t even figure out what curvilinear translation is!!!! You can’t even figure out that there is no conversion factor for radians to length. Your opinion is meaningless, because you are an idiot when it comes to physics.
skeptic…”My calculations proved the ball rotates about its local axis”.
Your calculations are obviously wrong. The ball cannot rotate on its axis because the string prevents it from doing so.
Gordon moans:
The ball cannot rotate on its axis because the string prevents it from doing so.
See the example of a rotating rod with a sphere connected to it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570016
This is a worked out problem from MSU lecture notes. As concluded in the problem, the sphere rotates about its own axis despite being connected to the rotating rod. You just don’t have the mental capacity to figure it out. Which is why you fail at understanding curvilinear translation.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570249
Robertson
I overlooked the most stupid, ignorant part of your ‘comment’ (quotes needed indeed):
” I have already pointed out the errors in Mayer’s work. He was a mathematician, not an engineer.
He tried to calculate the rotation of the Moon using individual particles and got it wrong. ”
1. You did not understand anything of what you had read, because you never learned let alone used a three-dimensional integral to compute the behavior of a spheroid.
2. But… you have read, misunderstood and misinterpreted the work of Lagrange, and not that of Mayer.
3. And Mayer was an excellent engineer, Robertson: he was all what you never have been, are not, and never will be.
I just need to imagine you trying to engineer Mayer’s micrometer 270 years ago, and I get a big, big laugh.
You didn’t read even one line of my comment, let alone of Mayer’s work! Because you can’t understand it, as it was written and typeset in the German written in the 18th century.
J.-P. D.
binny…”You did not understand anything of what you had read, because you never learned let alone used a three-dimensional integral to compute the behavior of a spheroid”.
There is no way to apply a triple integral to the particles of the Moon. They are stationary within the Moon therefore the triple integral with regard to forces, velocities, or accelerations would be zero.
All a triple integral could do is calculate an estimated volume for the Moon.
Mayer used a statistical form of highly theoretical analysis but he had no idea what he was doing. Otherwise, he would have noted that the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
Gordon, you’ve got both JD Bindidon and SGW flustered, flummoxed and frustrated.
Great job.
Now is only Norman would join in we’d have a trio of idiots. They have so much in common they’re almost like triplets.
Clint…”Now is only Norman would join in wed have a trio of idiots”.
Curly, Larry, and Moe. Problem is, those three were smart in real life and only acted like stooges.
ClintR
I just get tired of responding to your stupid posts. You are not an intelligent person, you are clueless about any REAL physics. All your posts just are kind of the same old same old. You get boring, a lot like Gordon Robertson. You two just droll on and on about things you don’t understand and can never seem to understand.
Your liberal use of the word “idiot” does not make your posts any more intelligent or rational. Basically you are not a smart person and continuing to respond to your bland and foolish posts grates on the nerves. I am trying to think of which of the three of your ignorant mental types was worse (g/e/r/a/n, J/D/H/u/f/f/m/a/n or ClintR). Not one of you has the slightest knowledge of physics. I guess that is why you and Gordon Robertson have the bromance. Two pseudoscientists praising each others make believe science.
I know how frustrating this is for you Norman. You want so much to pretend that you understand physics, but you always get trapped by reality.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568843
testing link related to Nate’s recent post about the covid vaccine:
Remove asterisks and paste into browser …
https://www.b*i*t*c*h*ute.com/video/hLEqktICu9UW/
note…the previous link is to a video by a doctor. She has been unfairly panned by idiots because they failed to hear and comprehend what she is saying.
She talks about the proposed covid vaccine but much of her talk is about the TECHNOLOGIES being introduced with the vaccine that are new and untested. She is expressing her concern about the POSSIBILITIES presented by the technologies which are unknown.
It’s amazing how people with degrees who are supposed to be scientists lack the ability to read, listen, and comprehend what another professional is saying.
About your video and your doctor:
“Then we have another scandalous video from osteopathic physician Carrie Madej that is so ridiculous that it is hard to believe she has had any scientific education. Madej starts out by describing correctly the role that DNA plays as the blueprint for virtually everything that happens in our body, and then proceeds to jump off the springboard directly into an empty pool. The mRNA vaccines, she says, are going to convert us into genetically modified organisms by altering our DNA. This is absolute nonsense. mRNA does not get incorporated into DNA. All it does is code for the production of the virus’ spike protein which in turn stimulates antibody production.”
Here’s more about what is wrong with that video.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/enough-make-scientists-cry
I lack both time and interest (due to the persistent, boring denialism of a few Contrarians) to translate this paper in English:
https://geodaesie.info/system/files/privat/zfv_2015_6_Hofmann_Mueller_Biskupek.pdf
Everybody can, however, use Google’s translator like here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5cxbd87
and can therefore obtain an idea of what is exactly done in the current context of Lunar Laser Ranging.
Maybe the great supergeniuses Robertson, ClintR, Swenson, DREMT and some others are courageous enough to send their wonderful theories to the three authors of the paper I linked to!
Anyway, despite the denialism of a few, science goes on.
Und das ist gut so!
J.-P. D.
JD, LLR uses the reflectors left on Moon during the Apollo missions. They are always accessible to Earth, meaning Moon is not rotating about its axis.
You find stuff you don’t understand, just like SGW and Norman.
You should try learning something about science.
Measurements from the LLR shows motions of the Moon that can’t be explained by horses on a merry-go-round. It requires admitting the Moon rotates on an axis that is not perpendicular to its orbital plane as well as the Moon having a molten core.
No one bothers using the LLR just to make up something that backs up the current view of the Moon’s motions. They are looking for what isn’t explained by the current models.
If you worked hard enough to make a ball on a string follow an elliptical path you would find the exact spot on the ball always faced the center of orbital rotation. The Moon does not do that.
Craig (possibly Snape), do you want to pick out the most ridiculous sentence from that comment, or do you want me to do it for you?
You go ahead. You’re the expert on ridiculous.
Okay idiot, let’s take your first sentence: “Measurements from the LLR shows motions of the Moon that can’t be explained by horses on a merry-go-round.”
The motions can’t be explained by coconuts, whales, or rhubarb either, idiot.
Did you get it?
The mgr horse is not explaining the motions of the moon. The mgr horse is a simple analogy for orbital motion.
I got time for one more–the first half of your second sentence: “It requires admitting the Moon rotates on an axis…”
Nothing requires admitting falsehoods, except a cult.
Why are you in a depraved cult. Don’t you have any friends?
You are correct:
“The mgr horse is not explaining the motions of the moon.”
Is Svante finally beginning to understand the difference between a simple analogy for orbital motion and a complete model for every nuance of the moon’s motion?
Yes, elliptical orbit and steady rotation explains it quite well.
Who is arguing that orbits are not elliptical, and that the change in orientation of the moon is not at a steady rate?
The two are not synchronized, your wooden horse model fails to match observations.
The wooden horse is not a model for the motion of the moon. It is a simple analogy for orbital motion.
This is for our super geniuses Gordon, ClintR and Craig. It’s from MSU lecture notes regarding a sphere attached to a massless rotating rod.
https://msuperl.org/wikis/pcubed/lib/exe/fetch.php?cache=&media=183_notes:pp_vs_real.008.png
I’ll provide a link below where you can read all the notes, but the important notes are as follows:
The sphere changes it orientation, the purple square and green squares are oriented in different ways at different times. This demonstrates that this sphere will rotate around it’s own center of mass, which (again) is at the center of the sphere. This rotation occurs at the same rate (ω) as the full rotation of the rod-sphere system.
So we have TWO axis of rotation. The text is VERY clear regarding this, and also well noted in the diagram.
This problem calculates the kinetic energy of the system.
This kinetic energy is the energy associated with the motion of the sphere around its center of mass, but the center of mass is also translating (around the circle of radius rcm). The speed of the translation is given by v=ωrc
I know DREMT will get all excited at the mention of translation, but this is translation of a point (center of mass), not a rigid body. That point is rotating around the origin of the system with an angular velocity w at a radius of rcm.
This sphere has the same face pointing towards axis of rotation for the system. Why? Because as we have been saying all along, the sphere rotates on its own axis at the same rate as the full rotation of the rod-sphere system. You could take away the rod and the problem would become a sphere in a circular orbit. The answers would be the same.
This problem concurs with the conclusions of my ball on a string problem, where it was proved the ball rotates on its own axis at the same rate as its orbit around the system’s origin.
https://msuperl.org/wikis/pcubed/doku.php?id=183_notes:rot_ke#examples
It’s okay to have both motions at the same time. That’s what Earth is doing, both motions. Their math is correct. They just messed up the markings on the spheres. The way they show it, there is only one motion — orbiting.
I did not expect you to understand this. The markings are correct. The language is very clear regarding the markings which is why they state:
The sphere changes it orientation, the purple square and green squares are oriented in different ways at different times. This demonstrates that this sphere will rotate around it’s own center of mass, which (again) is at the center of the sphere. This rotation occurs at the same rate (ω) as the full rotation of the rod-sphere system.
When the orbital and spin angular velocities are equal, the same face of the object always point towards the center of orbit.
So essentially the sphere does not rotate wrt the rod, just as if it’s welded to the end of the rod. A line drawn through the green square purple square and the orbital center remains a straight line. And after all, the description says the sphere is ATTACHED to the rod. You can’t have a rod attached to the center of mass of a sphere. That is physically impossible.
And you still owe velocity calculations for the ball on a string. Or you can calculate it for this sphere connected to the massless rod. Same calculation.
Your comments really hold no value because you NEVER back up anything you say, and you use personal definitions that are not recognized in the field of science.
They’ve got the graphic wrong, SGW. And you still don’t understand the motions. So now you are even more confused. I’ll take you through this, and explain it, but if you veer off from reality, or behave childishly, I won’t waste time with you.
Let’s take it one point at a time.
Point 1) They clearly mean for each sphere to be independently rotating about its own axis:
“…the sphere attached to the massless rod on the right rotates about the end of the rod.”
“As the sphere rotates around the end of the bar, the orientation [of] the sphere changes.”
“This demonstrates that this sphere will rotate around it’s [sic] own center of mass, which (again) is at the center of the sphere.”
And their energy equations show the same thing — two independent motions.
The text does NOT mean for the sphere to be “welded to the end of the rod”, as you stated.
Their text describes TWO motions, but the graphic describes only one. So do you now understand that they are describing TWO motions, both “orbiting” and “rotating about an CoM axis”, making the graphic wrong?
Poor Clint gets it wrong every time.
You have to watch the video. If you watch the video, it is clear the rod attaches to the outside of the sphere. They do not say anywhere in the video that the sphere is on some type of frictionless bearing that is free to rotate independently. And it is clear they have the markings on the sphere shown correctly
To analyze the rotation of the sphere about its center of mass, in the video they mark the sphere with a square symbol at the point where the rod attaches to the sphere. (This also confirms the rod is firmly attached to the outside of the sphere because the square marking on the sphere is always adjacent to the rod) They also place a circular mark at the outside edge of the sphere in line with the direction of the rod. This keeps track of the spheres orientation throughout its motion. They observe that the orientation of the square and circular mark on the sphere make a 360 degree rotation about the ball’s center of mass as the ball makes one orbit.
The guy performed the analysis flawlessly, and he goes on to solve for the total kinetic energy of the system. You will not understand because you have this mental block when strings and rods are attached to rigid objects, which prevents the object from rotating wrt the string or rod. That confuses all of you. You ALL would FLUNK any test on this because you have not been educated in physics, and you make stuff up.
Video lecture of sphere attached to rotating massless rod:
https://youtu.be/XlFlZHfAZeE
I’ll be darned, total kinetic energy is the translational energy plus rotational energy.
Let’s see your formulas ClintR.
SGW, the sphere is either rotating about its axis, or it isn’t. The text clearly says it is, the graphic clearly says it isn’t, and the video clearly indicates the guy doesn’t know what he’s doing.
He’s trying to say something that is NOT rotating about its axis has axial rotation energy! That’s creating energy from NOTHING! If that worked, you could just revolve the spheres and get energy out! That’s impossible.
Consider just one sphere on a horizontal clock face supported by an arm from the center of the clock. The sphere starts at 12:00. Call that starting position “north”. At that position, an indicator arrow on the sphere points to the center of the clock, “south”.
Now revolve the arm CW to the 3:00 position. If the sphere did not rotate about its axis, the arrow still points to the clock center, “west”. There is only one motion involved.
If the sphere rotated about its axis with the same angular speed as the arm, then the arrow would point “north”. There are two motions involved.
Many words, no formulas.
Silly snowflake Svante, the formulas are correct. The values plugged in are NOT correct.
KE(rotation) = 0, because ω(rotation) = 0.
ClintR squeals:
The sphere starts at 12:00. Call that starting position “north”. At that position, an indicator arrow on the sphere points to the center of the clock, “south”. Now revolve the arm CW to the 3:00 position. If the sphere did not rotate about its axis, the arrow still points to the clock center, “west”. There is only one motion involved.
No. No and No! If the sphere did not rotate about its axis, the indicator arrow would still point south at the 3:00 position. Because a non-rotating object translates. And a line through a translating object does not change its direction. But that won’t happen because the rod is fixed to the sphere.
Clint further yelps:
If the sphere rotated about its axis with the same angular speed as the arm, then the arrow would point “north”. There are two motions involved.
The sphere in this problem DOES change its orientation, because the sphere is firmly fixed to the rod. So at 3:00 the sphere will have rotated 90 degrees about its own axis and the indicator arrow would point west. (the problem uses the CCW direction, so your example should as well to avoid confusion) There are two motions with this problem. The sphere makes a circular revolution around the origin, and at the same time also rotates about its own axis, both at the same angular velocity.
“I know DREMT will get all excited at the mention of translation, but this is translation of a point (center of mass), not a rigid body. That point is rotating around the origin of the system with an angular velocity w at a radius of rcm.”
No, the point is translating, not rotating. This is precisely where it all goes wrong for you. They break down a movement into a translation and a rotation, simply for the purpose of calculation, and then you claim that the translation part is also a rotation, because they have given it an angular velocity which is a property of a rotation. That leads you to believe that you have two axes of rotation, when you do not. A translation is not a rotation, thus it involves no axis.
If the sphere is really meant to be rigidly attached to the rod, then obviously this is a case of pure rotation of the sphere about an external axis at the other end of the rod. No rotation about the center of mass of the sphere.
Otherwise, you could just draw a chalk circle towards the outside edge of a rotating platform, and claim that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating on their own axes, just because the platform is rotating! Draw as many chalk circles as you like. They are not rotating on their own axes, they are rotating about the center of the platform.
Clint has everything backwards because he invents his own terms and definitions. This university will not present the BS science that Clint invents.
The analysis of the problem is 100% correct. And it is 100% consistent with my evaluation of the ball on a string as well, which is essentially the same problem, since they have a massless rod instead of a string.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation.
SGW, where have I invented my “own terms and definitions”?
Wikipedia says this:
There are two types of angular velocity: orbital angular velocity and spin angular velocity. Spin angular velocity refers to how fast a rigid body rotates with respect to its centre of rotation. Orbital angular velocity refers to how fast a point object revolves about a fixed origin, i.e. the time rate of change of its angular position relative to the origin.
The sphere/rod problem has both. The sphere’s center of mass revolves around the orbital center. If you don’t want to call that an axis of rotation, that’s fine. It’s just semantics, because the solution to the problem does not change. The sphere clearly rotates about its own axis one time as the sphere performs one orbit.
The reality of the chalk circle does not change, either. The motion of the sphere is more accurately and simply described as a pure rotation about an external axis at the other end of the rod, with no rotation about the sphere’s own center of mass.
SkepticGoneWild, nice video.
University science explains rotation so anyone can see.
ClintR says no.
https://youtu.be/XlFlZHfAZeE
The motion of the sphere is more accurately and simply described as a pure rotation about an external axis at the other end of the rod, with no rotation about the sphere’s own center of mass.
The kinetic energy calculation is wrong if it doesn’t add both components as shown in the video.
…and the whole of kinematics is wrong if a pure rotation about an external axis should be described as a general plane motion.
If you start from zero kinetic energy, the way to get a zero rotational component is to let the square and circle keep their relative orientation on the blackboard.
Which would be the case the object was attached with a perfect bearing.
Which you could easily see with my bowls in water experiment.
Svante, the motion of the sphere is more accurately and simply described as a pure rotation about an external axis at the other end of the rod, with no rotation about the sphere’s own center of mass.
The video has Ktot = Ktrans + Krot.
Are you saying like ClintR that Krot = 0?
I am saying that the motion of the sphere is more accurately and simply described as a pure rotation about an external axis at the other end of the rod, with no rotation about the sphere’s own center of mass.
How do you calculate the total kinetic energy then?
There are 4 different methods of calculating the kinetic energy of a rotating object discussed in Tesla’s third paper. It’s not that he’s saying the method described in SGW’s video is “wrong”, per se…what he’s saying is, it can lead people to the erroneous conclusion that an object like the sphere on a rod is rotating on its own axis. Whereas, as I may have mentioned previously, the motion of the sphere is more accurately and simply described as a pure rotation about an external axis at the other end of the rod, with no rotation about the sphere’s own center of mass.
You are often one step more sensible than ClintR, one more example here.
So what happens to the part of kinetic energy represented (in some other way) by Krot when the string is cut?
I would say it is preserved a’ la Newton, what do you think?
I think that the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, before the string is cut, and after the string is cut, it rotates in its own axis. To quote Tesla, again: “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.”
Just a semantic issue then.
The result is the same.
As long as you understand the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis before the string is cut, think what you like.
Tesla moaned:
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.
Wow! That is such a dumb statement.
He’s got the cart before the horse! And why are the tangential velocities different?? BECAUSE of the inherent angular velocity!!
What a fricken’ moron. The tangential velocities are calculated by using the inherent angular velocity. They do not just appear on their own. And he should have realized that an object does not just start rotating on its own axis by itself. The reason the object rotates about its own axis after the string’s were cut is because the object was rotating on its own axis prior to the string being cut (Newtons first law of motion). And ALL our calculations so far, including the ball on a string, the sphere connected to a rod, prove this point as well.
The tangential velocities are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. You simply do not understand the concept of rotation about a fixed axis. The axis need not go through the body.
Here’s the problem with our in-house flat earth cult. They make all kinds of statements, but fail to back up anything with calculations.
I performed calculations for the ball on a string problem using accepted kinematic equations for motion to come up with my conclusion that the ball rotates on its own axis. That conclusion was supported entirely by careful calculations that were independently checked.
Have the flat earthers provide mathematical proof that the ball on a string does not rotate about its own axis? No. Is it possible to prove their point mathematically? If their assertion is correct, then there should be a way to mathematically prove their point, but so far all they have are unsubstantiated assertions.
You clowns either need to provide the mathematical proof, or shut the F$#% up.
Lol. Your “mathematical proofs” involve breaking down the motion into a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. But what is classified as rotation about a fixed axis should not be treated as a general plane motion. The proof is that simple.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
“General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.”
ClintR squeals:
They just messed up the markings on the spheres.
This is proof ClintR has never taken a physics class. He would FLUNK every test problem. He would never be able to get the correct answers. The professor would kick him out of the class because Clint would be stupidly arguing with the professor the whole time, and the students would laugh him out of the class.
Now would be a good time to produce your velocity calculations for the ball on a string. Oh, I forgot, you don’t have the intelligence to perform them.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570249
SGW: “This is for our super geniuses Gordon, ClintR and Craig.”
Ouch!
I agree that a ball on a rod or string and a horse on a merry-go-round rotate on their center of mass while traveling a circular path. I appreciate the notes and video lecture you linked to.
“Rotating About a Point that isn’t the Center of Mass:
Until now, you have only read about systems that rotate about their own center of mass. Systems can rotate about other points, for example, the sphere attached to the massless rod on the right rotates about the end of the rod. In this case, you can still determine the kinetic energy of this system by adding up the bits.
The total kinetic energy is the energy due to translation of the center of mass plus the motion relative to the center of mass.”
So relative to its center of mass the ball on a string rotates 1 time as that center of mass travels in a complete circle.
If a horse was bolted on top at the center of the merry-go-round not even Clint or Gordon would deny it rotated on its axis. Mount that same horse an inch from the center and it still rotates 1 time as the merry-go-round does one rotation. That is the only option for an object rigidly mounted to a rotating platform.
Objects orbiting in space have no such constraints. They can tumble or spin in any direction at any rate.
Another denier of the existence of pure rotation.
Craig says:
“Ouch!”
Don’t mind me, I was just yanking your chain. Ok, so you are not a genius.
When I found the link to the sphere on a rod problem, I did not see the video link at first. The video makes it much clearer than the written description.
Parallel axis theorem, nothing new. Been discussed plenty of times. It is what Tesla described as “still more remote from palpable truth”.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
“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”.
dremt…”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 moons axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences”
Thanks, Dremt. I’m glad Tesla noticed that a long time ago. The second part of the equation cannot work in this case for the reason we have been claiming. It’s angular velocity is zero therefore the second term is zero.
In order for it to be non-zero, the ball at the end of the mass-less rod would have to be mounted independently with its own axis. Then it would need to be set in motion independently of the rod. As lone as the ball is attached to the rod it cannot rotate and its angular velocity is zero.
Tesla moaned:
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.
That is simply a false statement. The translational component of kinetic energy is based on the translational movement of the rigid body’s center of mass, not translational movement of the whole object. So all particles would not have the same velocity, because the object is not in translational mode.
Gordon howls:
As lone as the ball is attached to the rod it cannot rotate and its angular velocity is zero.
You make a declarative statement with no support. The ball cannot rotate wrt the rod, but it can and does rotate wrt its COM.
Draw a position vector from the ball’s center of mass to a point on the far side edge of the ball. Now observe how the position vector makes a 360 rotation about the ball’s center of mass for every one orbit of the ball. This is simple kinematics.
At DREMT’s link above Tesla starts with 8 balls on frictionless bearings extended on spokes of a wheel.
“In this case, granted that there is absolutely no friction the kinetic energy of each ball will be given by the product of ½ M V2 not approximately, but with mathematical rigor. If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow.”
So far this agrees with how physicists would solve the problem using the parallel axis theorem.
Then Tesla uses smoke and mirrors to remove the angular momentum of the balls around their COM. He talks about dividing the ball into two hemispheres then turns them into masses without dimension.
“These are the distances from center O, at which the masses of the half spheres may be concentrated and then the algebraic sum of their energies — which are wholly translatory those of axial rotation being nil — will be exactly equal to the total kinetic energy of the ball as a unit.”
It is technically true that a mass without any volume would have no axial rotation but that’s not the same as having spheres with actual dimensions on the spokes (not to mention impossible.)
Tesla goes on to declare that no moon anywhere in the solar system rotates.
“The most plausible view is that no true moon has ever rotated on its axis, for at the time of its birth there must have been some deformation and displacement of its center of gravity thru the attractive force of the mother planet so as to make its peculiar position in space, relative to the latter, in which it persists irrespective of distance, more or less stable.”
So Tesla claimed to “dispel” axial rotation by turning the balls into 2 points of concentrated mass.
…and you claim that the sphere is rotating on its own axis by treating its motion as that of a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass, when that is kinematically known as a general plane motion…but you should not classify what is a pure rotation of the sphere about an external axis, as a general plane motion, in the first place!
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
“General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class.”
Tesla is just trying to get people to wake up to the fact that in no true physical sense is an object like the sphere on a rod rotating on its own axis.
Gordon stutters:
The second part of the equation cannot work in this case for the reason we have been claiming. Its angular velocity is zero therefore the second term is zero.
A rigid body with an angular velocity of “0” will be exhibiting curvilinear translation, i.e., it will remain upright, or oriented in the same direction the whole orbit, because with translation, there can be no rotation of any line within the body. That is not happening with the sphere. Specifically, the position vector to a point on the edge of the sphere from the COM performs a 360 degree rotation around the COM for every orbit. This is where you clowns screw up. You are measuring the rotation wrt a rotating reference frame that has the same angular velocity as the rod! You must use the inertial reference frame to have a consistent way to measure the angle change with respect to time.
Gordon, you won’t understand this because you don’t even get what curvilinear translation is!!
And so far all you clowns do is talk talk talk, with nothing to back up the talk. You have not yet mathematically proved the sphere cannot rotate wrt to its center of mass using standard kinematic equations. I have proved the ball does rotate on its own axis wrt the string, and you could not dispute the numbers, because they checked out with no conflicting velocity data.
You can continue with the BS talk, but that will not get you anywhere. Provide a mathematical proof. I can tell that won’t happen since you clowns insist that the velocity on all point of the ball are identical, which is hilarious. If you can’t even get that right, there is no hope.
craig t …”I agree that a ball on a rod or string and a horse on a merry-go-round rotate on their center of mass while traveling a circular path. I appreciate the notes and video lecture you linked to”.
You are confusing translation with rotation. A horse bolted to a carousel is translating, that is, it is changing position hence it is pointing constantly in different directions. If it is bolted to the carousel platform it cannot rotate about its COG, can it?
Gordon wails:
A horse bolted to a carousel is translating, that is, it is changing position hence it is pointing constantly in different directions.
Per the Madhavi paper, the requirement for translation is:
A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion
A horse bolted to a carousel as you state is pointing constantly in different directions.
This just confirms you have little grasp on the simple concepts of kinematics.
A horse bolted to a carousel is a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of the carousel.
Imagine Earth has two Moons.
Moon A is our current Moon, orbiting every 28 days and rotating once per orbit or not at all, depending on your frame of reference.
Moon B is further out, orbiting every 56 days and also tidally locked so it rotates or not according to your frame of reference.
The question is
“How can two Moons, both not rotating relative to the Earth, be rotating at different rates?
E, you’re confusing the motions. Orbiting is NOT “rotating about its own CoM”.
So both of your proposed orbits are possible. No problem. Rotation about a moon’s CoM is a separate motion.
So they can rotate at different rates while neither rotates at all, depending on the frame of reference.
Everything you write only applies to one frame of reference, but not to all the others.
We’re getting somewhere.
Now, why does your Earth centred frame of reference overrride rotation around the COM? Why do you insist that only the Earth centred frame of reference is valid?
Why do you frame your questions to fit your own false beliefs? Why do you insist that avoiding reality is valid?
How disappointing.
You were almost rational for a moment there.
Wrong E. In your perversion of reality, only someone that ia as perverted as you is “rational”.
To responsible adults, “rational” means accepting reality.
Be as disappointed as you wish.
Draw two circles in chalk on a rotating platform. One is drawn towards the outside edge of the platform, one is drawn in between that one and the center of the platform.
The contents of neither chalk circle is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. The circles are merely rotating about the center of the platform (orbiting).
The chalk circles are orbiting, and not rotating on their own axes.
entropic…” The question is
How can two Moons, both not rotating relative to the Earth, be rotating at different rates?”
You are referring to two different rotations, one external and one internal. Both Moon are rotating relative to the Earth on external axes. That’s why we should call that motion revolving or orbiting so the external rotation does not get confused with internal rotation.
Although I agree with Dremt in principle re external rotation, the Moon is not really rotating about the Earth. I regard that kind of rotation as a rigid body rotating on a rigid connecting rod, like with a flywheel or a bicycle wheel. Having said that, I am not going to quibble over the use of the word rotation. We humans use the word differently depending on the context.
The Moon’s motion is actually a rigid body moving along a linear path that is continually forced to change direction due to gravitational force. As such, it’s not rotating at all, but translating like a car or horse moving on a circular track.
However, I back up Dremt’s description of the Moon rotating about an external axis, as an analogy. It is similar to a ball rotating on a string, although the physics is quite different.
A rotation about a local axis is quite different and requires a local angular velocity about that axis which the Moon does not possess.As Dremt, Clint, and myself have pointed out, if a ball on a string was rotating locally it would wrap itself up in the string, a fact the spinners fail to concede.
Gordon: “The Moons motion is actually a rigid body moving along a linear path that is continually forced to change direction due to gravitational force. As such, its not rotating at all, but translating like a car or horse moving on a circular track.”
What explains this rigidity? The same force of gravity applies to all orbits.
You just answered your own question, Craig.
craig t…”What explains this rigidity? The same force of gravity applies to all orbits”.
The fact that all parts of the Moon are stuck together. They act as one unit, called a rigid body in physics. Gravity acts on the entire body, as you state, therefore the individual parts are treated as a whole.
They agree with that in another parts of the site in reference, that in a rigid body, all parts rotate at the same angular velocity whether about a local axis or an external axis.
Skeptic has gotten confused about that, treating the individual particle velocities as having significance with rotation.
Gordon shrieks:
Skeptic has gotten confused about that, treating the individual particle velocities as having significance with rotation.
We use the v=wr equation all the time in solving problems regarding rotation. I used it in solving for various velocities in the ball on a string problem. We can use that equation to solve for the tangential velocity of the near and far side of the moon. Since the radius from the orbital center to the near side and far side are different, we know that the tangential velocity for the near side and far side are different. That tells us, for example, that the moon is not undergoing curvilinear translation, since with curvilinear translation, all point on an object would have the same velocity.
It’s hilarious, though, that Gordon lectures us when he cannot grasp the simple concept of curvilinear translation.
Gordon shrieks:
The Moons motion is actually a rigid body moving along a linear path that is continually forced to change direction due to gravitational force. As such, its not rotating at all, but translating like a car or horse moving on a circular track.
Gordon continues to spew his ignorance regarding curvilinear translation. The REAL definition has been explained to him over and over for two solid years now, but he STILL fails to understand.
A race car or race horse on a circular track is not performing curvilinear translation. Curvilinear translation requires an object to maintain the same direction at all times. As Gordon even states, the moon is constantly changing its direction.
Gordon moans:
As Dremt, Clint, and myself have pointed out, if a ball on a string was rotating locally it would wrap itself up in the string, a fact the spinners fail to concede.
I performed an analysis for the ball on a string problem using standard kinematic principles and equations for the general motion of a rigid body. The analysis looked at the tangential velocity of the end of the string where it connects to the ball. It independently looked at the tangential velocity for the near side face of the ball where it connects to the string. Both velocities were identical, confirming the string would not wrap around the ball. None of my calculations were disputed mathematically. Gordon has not presented mathematical proof that says otherwise. He just makes these unsupported declarations.
How can you take Gordon seriously when he continually misunderstands simple kinematic concepts such as translation??
…and yet you ignore ftop_t’s proof, and ignore the fact that there are people on your own side of the debate agreeing that an object which is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
skeptic…” Curvilinear translation requires an object to maintain the same direction at all times. As Gordon even states, the moon is constantly changing its direction”.
The only reason I am replying to you is that others may be reading your drivel and taking it seriously.
Show me one example of motion along a curve that maintains the same direction at all times. Even your Ferris wheel gondola changes direction constantly.
Your reply reveals that you lack an understanding of what parallel motion means on a curve. Even the lecturer in the recent link you posted claims the motion of a body in a circle is translation. Since that translation fails to meet the definition of rectilinear translation the motion has to be curvilinear translation.
Of course the Moon is constantly changing direction, it is forced to do so by the gravitational field through which is is moving. For some perverted reason you think that means it is rotating on its axis but you are too stupid to look at the problem closely.
With regard to you working out the math of the alleged local rotation, your math is sheer garbage, applied as only a neophyte would apply it. You cannot create an angular velocity that is not there by manipulating math equations incorrectly.
Gordon Robertson says:
Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK-irkrPfLw
You’re welcome!
Gordon hurls:
Even your Ferris wheel gondola changes direction constantly.
The gondola always remains upright during its motion. Any line through the gondola maintains the same direction at all time, which is a requirement for curvilinear translation.
Gordon continues to prove his incompetence regarding kinematics.
Gordon squeals:
Show me one example of motion along a curve that maintains the same direction at all times.
Page 3 of the following shows an amusement ride translating
http://faculty.mercer.edu/jenkins_he/documents/Section16-1-16-3.pdf
Despite what the clown Gordon says, the seat or gondola of a ferris wheel is an example of curvilinear translation. The seat and/or gondola maintains an upright position as it moves around its orbital path.
Gordon lies:
Even the lecturer in the recent link you posted claims the motion of a body in a circle is translation
He did no such thing. If you could provide the exact quote where he said this, I’ll believe you. But you are simply lying in order to prove a point.
For at least 2 solid years you have misunderstood curvilinear translation despite being given all kinds of kinematic references explaining curvilinear translation.
Once again. With the sphere/rod problem, the sphere does NOT maintain the same orientation, a requirement for curvilinear translation. A line through the sphere does not keep pointed in the same direction throughout the motion, another requirement for curvilinear translation. A point on the far side edge of the sphere travels a longer distance than a point on the near side edge of the sphere, which means the velocity of the far side edge is greater than the near side edge. With curvilinear translation, the velocity of any point on the sphere must be equal.
You are just TOO STUPID to understand this. A complete and utter imbecile.
skeptic…from your link…”Systems can rotate about other points, for example, the sphere attached to the massless rod on the right rotates about the end of the rod”.
In the example given at your link, they show a mass-less rod which is ATTACHED to a sphere and the other end of the rod is attached to an axis about which it can turn.
See lecture 32 video titled “Rotating about a Point that isn’t The Centre of Mass”
***URL removed for testing***
The lecturer lays out an equation for the total kinetic energy as follows:
KEtotal = KE translation + KE rotation
= 1/2 Mw^2 + 1/2 Iball w^2
He admits that term one is translation, not rotation. For term 2, he claims the ball is rotating about its COG while ATTACHED to the mass-less rod, an utter impossibility.
In term 2, w = 0. therefore term 2 equals 0. and the total kinetic energy, because the problems has been stated with a massless rod, is the translational energy of the ball.
The lecturer is utterly confused. he draws a circle on the outer edge of the ball and a square on the inside of the ball to track them and fails to see the meaning staring him in the face.
The square always stays on the inner side of the ball tracing an inner circle. The circle traces an outer, concentric circle. Since the circle and square are always moving parallel to each other they cannot possibly rotate about the COG of the ball.
Since he admits the ball is translating, and it is translating on a circle, the motion must be curvilinear translation.
URL did not work…
https://msuperl.org/wikis/pcubed/doku.php?id=183_notes:rot_ke
Gordon: “The circle traces an outer, concentric circle. Since the circle and square are always moving parallel to each other they cannot possibly rotate about the COG of the ball.”
Start the motion with the rod holding the sphere pointing north. The circle is directly north of the sphere’s center of mass. Rotate the rod 180 degrees and the rod is pointing south and the circle is south of the COM. At any point the angular speed of the circle around the sphere’s COM is equal to the angular speed of the rod.
To avoid calculating the kinetic energy of every atom in the sphere the lecturer uses the parallel axis theorem. Here is a video from an engineering class where the professor proves the parallel axis theorem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkpfyJcqYwQ
Other engineering classes using the parallel axis theorem:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-003sc-engineering-dynamics-fall-2011/angular-momentum-and-motion-of-rotating-rigid-bodies/parallel-axis-theorem/
http://www.wikiengineer.com/Structural/ParallelAxisTheorem
http://mechanicsmap.psu.edu/websites/A2_moment_intergrals/parallel_axis_theorem/parallelaxistheorem.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570665
craig t…”At any point the angular speed of the circle around the spheres COM is equal to the angular speed of the rod”.
Agreed. That’s not what they are saying in the example at the link. They are claiming the sphere at the end of the rod is rotating about its own centre of mass, and they are applying the kinetic energy of the rotating sphere to the KE of the rod + the sphere. The KE of the sphere alone is zero since it is attached to the rod and cannot rotate. It’s local angular velocity, w = 0.
In the example, the lecturer drew a small square inside the sphere, so at 12 o’clock it would be at the bottom of the sphere. He drew a small circle opposite the square and at 12 o’clock it would be at the top of the sphere.
Rotate the rod/sphere to 6 o’clock and now the square is at the top of the sphere and the circle at the bottom. The only way that could happen is if the circle and square moved along concentric circles, meaning they moved parallel to each other at all times.
Since you have acknowledged the sphere and rod move at the same angular velocity, the fact they always move in parallel is the definition of curvilinear translation.
At no time does the circle or square rotate around the COM since they have located the COM at the centre of the sphere and it is moving on a concentric circle between the square circle and the circle circle. It’s not possible for the sphere to rotate with the near side, the far side, and the COG moving along parallel circles.
For rotation of the sphere, the circle and square would have to swap places between 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock, so the circle was on the inside. That would represent a 180 degree rotation at the halfway point.
Gordon squeals:
Since you have acknowledged the sphere and rod move at the same angular velocity, the fact they always move in parallel is the definition of curvilinear translation.
Why do you LIE about curvilinear translation?? The fact that they move in parallel to each other is NOT the definition of curvilinear translation. Objects exhibiting curvilinear translation must maintain their orientation. A line drawn through a translating object must maintain the same direction throughout the motion. The rod and sphere do not exhibit any of these qualities.
Gordon yelps:
Since he admits the ball is translating, and it is translating on a circle, the motion must be curvilinear translation.
He admits no such thing. He specifically stated in regard to kinetic energy:
The translational component keeps track of how the center of mass moves
He is referring to a point translating, not the whole sphere. At no time does he say the sphere is translating. So the sphere as a whole is not performing curvilinear translation. I don’t know why you are hung up on curvilinear translation. If you would just read and understand the requirements for curvilinear translation, you would see the sphere performing this orbit does not meet any of the requirements. The sphere does not maintain the same orientation throughout its motion. A line drawn through the sphere does not remain pointing in the same direction. All points on the sphere do not have the same velocity, etc.
The sphere is rotating about an external axis at the other end of the rod. There is no rotation about the center of mass of the sphere. It is just like the ball on a string. Kinematically-speaking, you would not describe this motion, which is simply a rotation about an external axis, as being a general plane motion (a translation plus a rotation). Yet this is what you are advocating. It is like you want to pretend “pure” rotation does not exist.
skeptic…”The translational component keeps track of how the center of mass moves
He is referring to a point translating, not the whole sphere”.
It’s a rigid body, all parts must translate at the same angular velocity about the rod axis.
With a uniform sphere or washer, you can put the COM at the centre of the sphere/washer region. That’s because, if you did a triple integral of all the uniform particle masses, there centre of mass would be located there. That’s the only reason they reference a COM with a body like a sphere at its centre.
The COM point is a convention for a uniform rigid body like a sphere. It’s ingenuous to claim translation refers only to that point since the point is representative of the entire rigid body. If you wanted to calculate the torque (moment) of a solid uniform sphere connected to a rod rotating about the x-y plane, you’d find the distance from 0,0 to the COM, the point at which your force would be applied.
In the example given, they make the rod mass-less and locate the COM at the centre of the sphere. A force applied at that point on the sphere, perpendicular to the rod, and d = 1 metre from 0,0 would have a moment of T = fd.
That’s how rigid body analysis works. They always make the rigid body uniform so locating the COM is easy. In more advanced mechanical engineering they have to work out the COM of an irregularly shaped body. In a more practical sense, they’d likely try to balance it on something and go from there.
Gordon shrieks
Its a rigid body, all parts must translate at the same angular velocity about the rod axis.
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!! You continue in your ignorance regarding translation. Once again, for translation, all points on the rigid body must have the same VELOCITY, not ANGULAR velocity.
Gordon whimpers:
For term 2, he claims the ball is rotating about its COG while ATTACHED to the mass-less rod, an utter impossibility.
You apparently either don’t have the capacity to see understand this, or you stubbornly refuse to accept the explanation presented by the professor in the video.
The only impossibility is that the sphere cannot rotate wrt the rod. The sphere does go through a 360 degree rotation wrt its center of mass for every one orbit. The professor clearly explained how that is measured.
This problem is similar to the ball on string problem I solved, where I proved the ball rotates on its own axis one time per every orbit. And I proved that the string will not wrap around the ball by examining the velocity of the end of the string, and velocity of the near side edge of ball. They both had the same velocity, so no wrapping will occur. This sphere attached to a rod problem is another confirmation that my analysis was correct.
No, it is just another example of breaking down what should be a pure rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about the center of mass of the object), into a translation plus a rotation. You cannot take a translation and a rotation, and then turn around and say that the translation part is actually another rotation. You do not have two axes of rotation, in other words.
If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the object from the center of the revolution.
skeptic…”The sphere does go through a 360 degree rotation wrt its center of mass for every one orbit. The professor clearly explained how that is measured”.
****
The professor was clearly wrong. I doubt if he is a professor, he’s likely a grad student. Like NASA, he is confusing a change of face-direction of the orbiting body with a rotation about its axis. A translating body will face in every direction of the compass during an orbit and it seems many people have been lured into presuming the body is rotating on its axis.
In a quote from Tesla, posted recently by Dremt, Tesla references the equation in question and claims it has lead scientists astray. They have applied it incorrectly to a non-rotating body like the Moon and leaped to the conclusion that the body is rotating about its own axis.
What surprises me is that you have been given several examples of why such bodies cannot rotate about a local axis yet you cling to a highly theoretical reasoning of why they can.
One of them is the wooden horse bolted to the carousel platform. What further proof do you need that it is impossible for the horse to rotate about its COM? Same with the ball on the string.
Also with the problem in question. The lecturer admits right off that the sphere is attached to the mass-less rod then he goes about applying an angular velocity to it. That should serve as a lesson to you about blindly applying math without understanding the problem.
Had the lecturer applied a freebody diagram to the problem he would hopefully have seen immediately there is no angular velocity about the sphere COM. In fact, they drew a form of freebody diagram and included an angular velocity to the sphere, which is incorrect.
Gordon spews:
A translating body will face in every direction of the compass during an orbit
O. M. G. The requirement for translation is:
A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion
[Madhavi paper]
What characterizes translation is that a line scored on the surface of a body does not change its orientation as it moves
[https://web.calpoly.edu/~fowen/DAUST-KinDynMach/9RigidBodyKinematicsVelocity.pdf]
Every line segment in the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.
[http://www.engineering.uco.edu/~aaitmoussa/Courses/ENGR2043/Dynamics/Chapter4/ch4.pdf]
You stated that a translating body will face every direction. TOTALLY WRONG!!
You are demonstrating that you are clueless regarding physics and kinematics with your ignorant statements.
Gordon moans:
What further proof do you need that it is impossible for the horse to rotate about its COM? Same with the ball on the string.
You simply will never get this concept, apparently. For the ball on a string problem, the ball will never, cannot ever, will not ever rotate wrt the string, but it can and does rotate wrt its center of mass with reference to the local reference frame which is non inertial. I already performed an analysis for the ball whirling around on a string and proved the ball can and does rotate on its own axis. Nobody could dispute my numbers. The sphere/rod problem was exactly the same type of problem, and the analysis by the professor confirmed the results of analysis as well.
Gordon squeals:
Had the lecturer applied a freebody diagram to the problem he would hopefully have seen immediately there is no angular velocity about the sphere COM
A freebody diagram is commonly used to solve statics problems. It is not used to analyze kinematic problems of motion. You are just making stuff up.
I performed two analyses on two different objects. The ball whirling on a string, and a horse running a circular race track. I provide all the necessary calculations in my proof. You have done nothing. So show me by employing the kinematic equations for velocity like I did, that the sphere cannot rotate around its own axis. Show me the numbers that prove this.
If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
Gordon groans:
Since the circle and square are always moving parallel to each other they cannot possibly rotate about the COG of the ball.
Wrong. You are redefining what rotation is, and how its measured.
The following graphic is similar to the rod/sphere problem, except the red line should stop at the edge of the sphere.
https://postimg.cc/dLqkKP24
The red/blue line that extends across the sphere through its COM makes a 360 degree rotation about the sphere’s for every one orbit of the sphere.
Last sentence should read:
The red/blue line that extends across the sphere through its COM makes a 360 degree rotation about the spheres COM for every one orbit of the sphere.
Nice animation of the ball on a string orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis.
skeptic…”The following graphic is similar to the rod/sphere problem”
Not unless the rotating red line is attached to the circle. Why did you include the cross-hairs that are always upright? The cross-hairs should be attached to the radial line so they rotate with it.
Inertial reference frames do not rotate.
Regardless of appearances from a specific reference frame, the ball is rotating about an external axis, in the center of the screen, and not about its own center of mass.
This latest video that SGW found is amazing. If it’s real, that is.
It almost appears like a SNL skit. The guy performs like a comedian, hat and all.
I don’t have time this weekend to do a full debunk, but maybe next week.
Clint squeals like a sissy:
I dont have time this weekend to do a full debunk, but maybe next week!!
LMAO. We are still waiting for your FIRST debunk!! What are you doing? Rearranging your furniture mama’s basement? Practicing your banjo??
We are STILL waiting for your velocity calculations for the ball on a string!!
mostly in monasteries.
(Had a few minutes this morning for this. May not have time to respond until this evening or tomorrow.)
Debunking MSU Video
SGW found another link that he can’t understand, yet believes in.
https://youtu.be/XlFlZHfAZeE
The short video is funny. The attempt is to pervert physics, either purposely or unknowingly. I was unable to find the name of the funny guy with the funny hat. So, let’s call him “Beanie”.
Beanie tries to tell us that each of the revolving spheres is also rotating about their axes. Even though the spheres are attached to the rod, and cannot rotate, he believes they are nevertheless rotating! IOW, he’s just another idiot.
The quickest debunk is to use a more obvious object. One of the simplest objects is a long, slender rod. The rod is so long and slender that it’s thickness can be ignored. Now suppose one end of the rod is attached to a vertical pole. The rod is free to revolve around the pole. It has a frictionless attachment.
The rod is revolving around the pole with angular speed “ω”, its mass is “M”, and its length is “L”. So its moment of Inertia around the pole is: I = (1/3)(ML^2). And its Kinetic Energy = I*ω^2 = (1/3)*M*(ωL)^2.
Now anyone that understands basic physics understands that. We know the KE for the rod. That’s it. It’s finished. It’s over.
But nooooooo! Beanie would claim that the rod is ALSO rotating about its axis. He would draw his little square and circle on the rod as his “proof”. Then Beanie would calculate the additional energy, created by his imagination, and add it to the real energy. He would get the wrong answer because he doesn’t understand he’s creating energy from thin air! The rod cannot possibly be rotating about its axis, it’s securely fastened at one end! It has no other motion.
Beanie is really no different than a number of idiots here that don’t understand physics, reject reality, and can’t learn. The idiots believe that physics is just based on “frames of reference”. They believe reality is all about just the way you look at things.
For example, a high-powered floor fan is rotating at a certain angular speed. That gives it a certain kinetic energy. A person looking into the front of the fan can calculate that KE, based on knowing the moment of inertia and angular speed. That’s it. It’s finished. It’s over.
But noooooo! Beanie and the idiots would claim someone standing behind the fan sees it rotating in the opposite direction! One would see it rotating CW, the other would see it rotating CCW. So, the fan must have TWO rotations, equal and opposite, so it is “really” not rotating at all! Ask SGW, Craig T, Norman, Folkerts, Bindidon, Svante, Snape, or any to the other idiots, to stick their heads in the fan. It won’t hurt because it is not rotating!
Idiots!
If anyone is a Michigan taxpayer, they should contact MSU and ask them why they are perverting and corruption science.
Thanks for the comedy routine, ClintR.
This alcohol induced rant is from a clown who has NEVER performed a calculation in his life. We are STILL waiting for his velocity calculations for the ball on a string.
Clint drones on and on about the rod, but the professor indicates the rod is massless. Hello! McFLy!!!
All his points have been debunkded already. This just confirms his compete ignorance regarding physics.
Yes, SGW, ClintR’s 8:02am work is, as usual, hilarious.
ClintR assumes a rod made up of an infinite number of point masses to formally integrate the rod’s moment of inertia I about its end as 1/3 ML^2.
ClintR then concludes the point masses each have no rotational KE. Which is what ClintR assumed in the first place since the rod’s assumed constituent point masses have no rotational KE to begin with. One just has to bust out laughing at ClintR’s exercise.
ClintR, DREMT, and Gordon continue as a three-ring physics circus always entertaining the critical, informed blog commenters and lurking readers with their various physics failures.
In one fell swoop Tonto brings down the non-spinners’ house of cards. He not only shows that their own models contradict their position, but also that when confronted with the truth they swiftly substitute a strawman.
You are doing a heck of a job there, Brownie.
https://tinyurl.com/tonto-debunks-himself
The truth is that there is only one axis of rotation for the sphere on a rod, as ftop_t proved.
You are doing a heck of a job there, Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
The truth is that there is only one axis of rotation for the sphere on a rod, as ftop_t proved.
You are doing a heck of a job there, Brownie!
https://ibb.co/9cHckn9
Your flat-earther Math does not add up.
The truth is that there is only one axis of rotation for the sphere on a rod, as ftop_t proved.
That is simply a statement of fact, about rotation.
Meh!
https://ibb.co/9cHckn9
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
Yes, he is breaking down the motion into a translation of the center of mass, and a rotation about that center of mass. Even looking at it this way, you still only have one axis of rotation, and that is only in a very abstract sense, strictly for the purpose of calculating the kinetic energy, only. In no real, physical sense is the sphere rotating on its own axis. It is, as Tesla put it, only an "abstract conception".
If the sphere on a rod had two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the sphere from the center of revolution. However, this would not be possible without first making the sphere physically capable of rotating on its own axis. Being rigidly attached to the rod makes axial rotation impossible.
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.”
Per Tesla, the sphere on a rod has two axes of rotation, so you see only one side of the sphere from the center of revolution in his diagram.
DREMT is wrong, Tesla is correct.
Troll Ball4 quotes the text accompanying the diagram of Fig. 4, about which Tesla remarked:
“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”
and tries to argue that Tesla endorses that method of calculation! Clearly, he does not. He was criticizing it. This is why I no longer respond to Ball4. He blatantly misrepresents everyone.
Besides which, a translation plus a rotation does not equal two rotations. You do not have two axes of rotation! It’s that simple.
Wrong DREMT, Tesla really is criticizing “This abstract idea of angular motion” meaning no rotation on internal axis is an abstract illusion. It is DREMT that is wrongly reading, not Tesla.
Tesla has the concrete idea of two motions correct as shown in his figure and diagrams, again, in Tesla’s concrete words: “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.”
This is from Tesla’s first article:
"…the moon does not, and cannot revolve on its axis."
"The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable."
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
No DREMT that’s wrong, Tesla in his own words is seeking to “dispel” the notion “that the moon does not rotate on its own axis” as an abstract illusion. DREMT has been reading Tesla wrong for a long time and using DREMT’s own words instead of Tesla’s direct quotes:
“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.”
Tesla gets it correct, is writing to dispel DREMT’s abstract illusions.
#2
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
ball4…”Tesla really is criticizing This abstract idea of angular motion meaning no rotation on internal axis is an abstract illusion”.
Ball4 trolls on. Tesla claimed he was going to refute the illogical notion that the Moon rotated on a local axis, and he did.
Say, have to discovered that heat is real?Or are you still abstracting it as a measure of heat?
Heat is the total KE of motion of any object’s constituent atoms/molecules, Gordon. More total constituent KE, more heat. Higher avg. KE, the higher the temperature.
And, again, Tesla’s direct quotes, pay no attention to DREMT’s illusions that Tesla “dispels”:
“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.”
#3
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Actually using Tesla’s own words DREMT’s abstract idea is dispelled by Tesla using additional evidences such as Tesla’s spoked wheel ends showing the same face to the center of 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.”
wherein: “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.”
#4
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
dremt…”Besides which, a translation plus a rotation does not equal two rotations. You do not have two axes of rotation! Its that simple”.
Yes, it is that simple, something I am trying to get NASA to acknowledge.
Since they are talking about kinetic energy, a sphere attached to a rod as a rigid body must be treated as a unit for the purpose of KE analysis. However, if the sphere at the end of the rod was free to rotate independently about its COM, then you’d have to sum the KE’s of the rod + the sphere re translation and the sphere’s rotational KE itself. I don’t know what good that would do anyone.
Tesla was correct. Somehow the purpose of the equation has become misunderstood through the ages. There have been some brilliant scientists through the ages but a lot of dense ones too, who would rather follow than think.
Yes Gordon, Tesla is correct, one must sum the two KEs, it is DREMT that 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.”
The ball on the end of the rod is not a point mass, the rotational energy on the ball’s own internal axis must be resolved into a separate component of KE as Tesla points out.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571256
ball4…”Yes Gordon, Tesla is correct, one must sum the two KEs, it is DREMT that is wrong:”
Ball4…please stop trolling.
Just see 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.”
#2
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571256
skeptic…”You continue in your ignorance regarding translation. Once again, for translation, all points on the rigid body must have the same VELOCITY, not ANGULAR velocity”.
You have no idea of the difference between motion on a horizontal surface and motion on a curved surface. Any continuous curve is defined by the tangent line at any point on the curve. The tangent, of course, is the first derivative of the curve equation, which indicates how the curve is changing at that point.
If you have a particle moving along that curved path, you can track its change of position wrt time (the velocity) using x-y coordinates or polar coordinates. With x-y coordinates, you use the instantaneous value, dy/dx. However, you can find the equivalent radius of the curve at any one point and determine the radius at that point. From that you can determine the rate of change of the angle traced out by that radial line wrt the x or y axis.
If you replace the particle with a rigid body, you don’t calculate the velocity of each particle on the rigid body, you treat it’s COM as if it is the particle just described. Therefore, the velocity of the rigid body is defined as the velocity of its COM only.
If you use polar coordinates, and let’s use something simple like a circle for the curve, the angular velocity of a radial line from the origin to the COM of the rigid body defines the velocity of the rigid body. The individual velocities of particles making up the rigid body don’t matter, the body behaves as if the velocity vector is applied to the COM only.
On the Moon, it’s orbital path is determined by a radial line from Earth’s centre to the centre of the Moon. It takes that radial line and point 27+ days to complete an orbit and every particle on the Moon along that radial line completes the orbit in the same time even though they are moving at different velocities.
You are putting the horse before the cart. Different particles have different velocities because the are part of a rigid body, not the other way around. With a rigid body, the individual particle velocities have no meaning whatsoever.
All velocity calculations using distance and time over a specified distance is average velocity.
Average Velocity = distance/time.
It’s the same with rectilinear translation. All particles on the Moon complete an orbital distance in the same time. Ergo, they are all traveling at the same average velocity throughout the orbit.
Gordon snorts:
All particles on the Moon complete an orbital distance in the same time. Ergo, they are all traveling at the same average velocity throughout the orbit.
I can only shake my head. Look at the following diagram
https://pixfeeds.com/images/41/608495/1280-increasing-tangential-velocity.png
We are going to place the moon in between point A and point B. So point A is on the near side of the moon, and Point B is on the far side of the moon. The velocity of A is greater than the velocity of B. Any questions?
Since the velocities are different, we can conclude that the object is not in curvilinear translation mode. We also observe that a line through the moon (AB) will point in different directions. The requirement for curvilinear translation is that a line through the object remains pointing in the same direction throughout its motion. We also observe that the moon is changing it orientation throughout its orbit. A translating object never changes its orientation.
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
[https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Note what it says above regarding both types of translation:
The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body.
and;
All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
skeptic…”I can only shake my head. Look at the following diagram”
I have already acknowledged that particles at different distances from an axis move at different velocities. However, your diagram does not represent a rigid body, it represents two particles orbiting an axis at different distances from the axis.
That does take place in a rigid body with the particles but they are constrained to complete the same distance in the same time because they are stuck together. Some particles have further to travel in the same time hence they move at different speeds. That has nothing to do with the angular velocity of a rigid body orbiting an axis. It is determined by the velocity of a radial line from the axis to the centre of mass of the rigid body.
When the Moon orbits the Earth, presuming a circular orbit, the 27+ days it takes the Moon to complete the orbit is determined by the time it takes a radial line to complete one revolution through 360 degrees. No one cares how fast the individual particles are moving since it is irrelevant.
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time. If you draw a radial line from the centre of the Earth right through the Moon, any point along that radial line is moving at the same velocity as the radial line.
If you want to consider individual particle velocities then you must give each particle within the Moon on that radial line it’s own orbit. When that happens, you can no longer consider the Moon as a rigid body but a collection of particles each with its own orbit.
That’s not how it works in physics, a rigid body is not treated as a collection of individual particles. To do so, would be extremely cumbersome, not to mention impossible since no one can get access to each particle to examine its velocity. Mayer tried to do that, treating all the particles in the Moon statistically the way Boltzmann and Maxwell hypothesized gas particles statistically.
It’s not necessary. We treat the Moon as a macro body and we are only interested in how long it takes to complete one orbit. We define the orbital path at the Moon’s COM. To find the orbital period, all we need to do is time it using a reference point. What we are doing in essence is timing a radial line turning with the Moon, measuring the angular velocity. No one gives a dog’s do-do, about the velocity of individual particles.
So we know that all particles on the Moon must complete the orbit with the same angular velocity while moving in parallel. Their individual velocities have nothing to do with it.
If we wanted to find the time it takes for one orbit, we could align one edge of the Moon with a distant star then wait for it to complete an orbit and align with that star again. We could then calculate the orbital length and find the average velocity. Do we care that individual particles are moving at different average velocities? I don’t.
Gordon howls:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
Wow! Draw a line from the moon’s center of orbit to a point on the near side of the moon. The motion of that point will be a circular path with a certain radius R1. Now, draw a line from the center of the moon’s orbit to a point on the far side of the moon. The motion of that point will be along a circular path with a certain radius R2. So we have concentric circles for each of those points. The point on the far side of the moon travels a longer distance in the same amount of time compared to the point on the near side, therefore the velocities are different.
You just seem to be in an alternate universe where you can invent your own effed-up form of physics that has no basis in reality.
skeptic…”The point on the far side of the moon travels a longer distance in the same amount of time compared to the point on the near side, therefore the velocities are different”.
Thanks for acknowledging that both points complete an orbit in the same time. Ergo, they are traveling at the same angular velocity.
Gordon squeals:
Thanks for acknowledging that both points complete an orbit in the same time. Ergo, they are traveling at the same angular velocity.
I never said otherwise. You missed the point as usual. Your comment was:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That is incorrect, as usual.
And I proved with the calculation above for a point on the near and far side of the moon that they covered a different distance in the same time, not the same distance. Therefore their velocities are different. This also proves that the moon does not exhibit curvilinear translation as well.
Do we care that individual particles are moving at different average velocities? I dont
You got that right. You don’t care because calculating the velocities of individual points indicate the moon is not undergoing curvilinear translation. It would upset your phony definition of curvilinear translation.
Gordon spueals:
However, your diagram does not represent a rigid body, it represents two particles orbiting an axis at different distances from the axis.
OMG. As I stated, I modified the drawing to show a moon inserted between A and B. Man, are you dense.
Re: Translation —
The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body.
All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
That’s why translation is a good way to describe orbital motion. The ball on a string and Moon both have all points moving at the same velocity and same acceleration.
Even Beanie, in the MSU video, got that much right….
.
ClintR moans:
The ball on a string and Moon both have all points moving at the same velocity and same acceleration.
Even Beanie, in the MSU video, got that much right….
Wrong! The professor never said anything to that effect. Provide the quote.
Please provide calculations to prove your ignorant statement regarding velocities. We are still waiting.
This is why Clint hides behind a fake name. It would be SO embarrassing if people knew who this was making such an abject fool of himself.
And its hilarious that DREMT agrees with this!!
Start at 0:45.
You REALLY like making yourself look like an idiot, don’t you Clint?
Provide the exact quote.
Our boy wonder STILL provides no velocity calcs. He NEVER backs up his moronic statements.
This is so typical of the cult idiots. How many times have we seen this before? They find something they believe fits their false beliefs. They link to it. Then the nonsense is exposed. Then the idiots get mad and start the insults and false accusations.
It happens so often with SGW, Norman, and Bindidon.
It makes for great entertainment.
SGW found the bogus MSU video. Now, since its been debunked, he pretends he doesn’t know how to watch it!
He now wants to deny the “proof” he found.
Great entertainment.
Actually ClintR’s rod example was easily debunked.
LMAO. As is Clint’s MO, he neve follows through on his dumb statements.
All I asked for was a quote to prove his contention that the professor stated all points on the sphere have the same velocity.
I am still waiting for the quote. AND I am still waiting for his velocity calculations for the ball on a string.
You have been provided an opportunity to shine. But so far you have laid an egg.
Clint solving kinematic equations for velocity:
https://www.survivethewild.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2dzOInI.gif
SGW and Ball4 continue with the entertainment.
SGW linked to the statements about translation, which I referred to here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571339
I pointed out that the video he first loved described the “orbital motion” of the revolving sphere as “translation”.
Now SGW wants to disavow both his first link and the video!
And who knows what Ball4 is taking about?
Clint moans:
I pointed out that the video he first loved described the “orbital motion” of the revolving sphere as “translation”.
That is a total lie. Here’s the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlFlZHfAZeE&feature=emb_logo
Now give me the quote where the professor says all points on the revolving sphere have the same velocity. (Hint: he never says it or even implies it)
And provide the velocity calculations for the ball on a string.
Clint’s reputation cannot get much lower.
skeptic…”This is why Clint hides behind a fake name. It would be SO embarrassing if people knew who this was making such an abject fool of himself”.
Bingo!! Got him, Clint.
SGW, it is YOU that is the “total lie”.
You can’t get anything right so you constantly insult and falsely accuse.
When I have time, I consider reality-deniers like you cheap entertainment.
Find us some more links that you will later deny. That’s when it’s really fun.
Clint,
You have not provided the quote from the video that says the velocity of all points of the sphere have the same velocity.
You have not posted that quote because it does not exist.
You STILL have not provided velocity calcs for the ball on a string, either.
Such a loser.
That’s it?
That’s all you’ve got?
A bunch of irrelevant, distracting nonsense?
Maybe that’s why you have to call everyone else a loser….
I know exposing your lies is distracting to you. You must get distracted a lot.
So, once again Clint makes a grand statement, but fails to back it up.
So embarrassing.
A quick review, SGW:
* You found a definition of Kinematics that you then had to ignore.
* You found a video that showed you translation fits orbital motion, which you had denied.
* And, that same video claimed something that was not rotating was nevertheless rotating.
It’s Lose, Lose, Lose.
Want to try again?
skeptic…”Clint drones on and on about the rod, but the professor indicates the rod is massless”.
If the rod is massless then it has no atoms therefore it is invisible. So, you have a sphere at the end of an invisible rod rotating about an axis with no visible means of how it remains in orbit.
By making the rod massless, the lecturer was trying to locate the COM of the unit (rod + sphere) at the centre of the sphere. Then he proceeded to claim the sphere is rotating around that COM.
In reality, the rod must have mass to support the weight of the sphere. He did not specify if the sphere is hollow or solid, but if its solid it would have significant mass therefore the rod would require significant mass. That would move the COM toward the rod or maybe into the rod and since the rod/sphere unit is pointing in different directions he would have to conclude the rod and the sphere as a unit was rotating about the COM, as in Clint’s example with the rod rotating about the pole.
ClintR’s rod example is not massless, rod has mass M, and the rod has no sphere at free end.
ball4…”ClintRs rod example is not massless, rod has mass M, and the rod has no sphere at free end.”
Comprehension, Ball4, I was talking about what the so-called professor said, not Clint.
Gordon YOU wrote: “as in Clint’s example with the rod rotating about the pole.”
It helps to be thinking while writing comments Gordon.
Gordon whimpers:
If the rod is massless then it has no atoms therefore it is invisible.
Are you on crack cocaine?? He uses a massless rod to simplify the problem so he could focus on the kinetic energy and motion of the sphere. Of all your dumb statements, this tops the list.
If the rod DID have a mass, he could have broken down the problem into two portions, the kinetic energy of the sphere plus the kinetic energy of the rod. But he was not interested in the kinetic energy of the rod.
skeptic…”He uses a massless rod to simplify the problem so he could focus on the kinetic energy and motion of the sphere. …t”
Way ahead of you on that, already explained it to you. So, the prof is posing a thought experiment and still screwed it up. He forgot about the sphere being attached to the invisible rod hence it’s inability to rotate about its COM.
The lesson here is this: when you dabble in math without understanding the physical problem you are going to screw up. A sphere attached to a rod cannot rotate on it’s COM unless the entire unit is tossed through the air like a boomerang. As long as the other end of the rod is attached to an axis, the sphere cannot rotate about its COM.
Gordon slobbers:
He forgot about the sphere being attached to the invisible rod hence its inability to rotate about its COM.
This is an example of your inferior intellect not firing on all cylinders. The only thing the attachment prevents is the sphere rotating wrt the rod.
https://postimg.cc/dLqkKP24
As the above gif shows, the red/blue line through the sphere rotates 360 degrees around its COM for every one orbit.
My ball on a string calculation confirmed his analysis as well.
Your calculation confirmed you don’t have a clue about motions. A quick observation confirms the rope wraps around the pole, not the tether ball.
You’re an uneducated idiot, SGW. And you can’t change.
Says the clown who can’t calculate simple velocity.
Did you figure out that quote from the video yet??
LMAO. What a loser.
Clint…”Youre an uneducated idiot, SGW. And you cant change”.
There are uneducated people who have an ability to gain insight into complex problems. However, Skeptic is the type, Like Norman, who read textbooks, misunderstand them, then set themselves up as authorities on a subject.
The fact that he fails to grasp that the individual particle velocities in a rigid body are of little concern is one thing. However, his insistence that a sphere attached to a rod, which is connected to an axle, can rotate around it COM, makes him a plain dunce. Doesn’t say a lot for a lecturer who cannot see that simple truth either.
Gordon Robertson
I am not that interested in the endless Moon-rotation issue.
I did see where you think I misunderstand textbooks. That is a typical false statement from you. I understand the material well. You are the one who can only understand made up contrarian physics.
So rather than claim I do not understand valid science, it would be correct to claim you are the ignorant one in this case.
Wrong again as always.
Norman, you’re not interested anymore because you’ve figured out you’ve been wrong. You’ve been trying to deny reality, and that makes you an idiot. Now you’re trying to leave the sinking ship.
And you’re also trying to avoid reality about the ice cubes. You failed to answer my question, several days ago. You’ve been to busy hiding.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568843
It’s hilarious that I’m being lectured by an imbecile who has not figured out the simple kinematic concept of curvilinear translation. His definition, if you can call it that, disagrees with every textbook and kinematic lecture note references that you can find.
I performed a proof that the ball on a string rotates on its own axis, and no one could dispute my calculations.
The professor solving the sphere/rod problem came up with a similar answer.
Here is a link to the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlFlZHfAZeE&feature=emb_logo
Feel free to go to the link and add comments. See if they respond.
But you have NOT provided any calculations to support your assertion that the sphere cannot rotate about its center of mass. I on the other hand even assumed the w about its own axis was zero for the ball/sphere. But that assumption did not work mathematically.
So put up or shut the $#$% up.
ClintR
You are not a smart person and are unable to process data in a logical or scientific fashion. Your simplistic mental abilities do not allow you to comprehend the answer I provided for you stupid ice cube question. It is a conditional situation and there is no simple yes/no answer. I did elaborate the conditions for you in simple enough terminology but your limited mental abilities were not even sufficient for you to grasp the concept of conditions.
Like I have stated, you are not smart enough to carry on useful conversations. Mostly just dull repetitive meaningless points you post with zero content. You have a lazy and simple mind.
If you had even a little more intelligence it could be interesting to discuss points with you. As it stands now, you are a boring simpleton with nothing of value to contribute on this blog.
Norman always has the same MO. He has no understanding of physics, so he tries to fake it. He finds things on the Internet that he believes “proves” him right. Usually, what he finds proves him wrong! Then he gets mad and starts babbling incoherently, as above.
Both SGW and Bindidon demonstrate the same pattern —
1. Fake it.
2. Get caught.
3. Implode.
4. Repeat.
It’s great entertainment.
skeptic…”The only thing the attachment prevents is the sphere rotating wrt the rod”.
You just confirmed that the sphere cannot rotate wrt the rod, ergo it has no angular velocity about its COM. That means the second part of the equation is zero. Since your prof defined the first part of the equation as translation, the sphere’s motion is pure translation.
That’s what I have been trying to tell you all along. Same with the Moon. It’s motion is curvilinear translation since the translation is on a curved surface.
that should be ‘the translation is on a curved path’.
“You just confirmed that the sphere cannot rotate wrt the rod” sure, so in Gordon’s rod accelerating frame the sphere’s rotation term relative to inertial space then needs to be included. It’s all relative Gordon. That’s why always need to start from non-accelerating inertial space to properly calculate all forces through a distance i.e. energy.
Curvilinear translation is JUST cm translation, NO cm rotation Gordon.
ball4…”That’s why always need to start from non-accelerating inertial space to properly calculate all forces through a distance i.e. energy”.
Or, you could simply look at the problem to see there is no rotation of the sphere about a local axis. Of course, with your mind set, you have redefined heat to be a mystical phenomena that measures itself.
“Curvilinear translation is JUST cm translation, NO cm rotation”
Would you try speaking English? That statement is utter nonsense.
Non-spinners, what’s the correct answer?
https://ibb.co/9tXD9sh
Gordon vomits:
Since your prof defined the first part of the equation as translation, the sphere’s motion is pure translation!!!
No Gordon. He as careful to reference the translation to a point, in this case the center of mass. A point can translate.
You keep ignoring all the requirements for rigid body curvilinear translation:
1. Orientation of body does not change
2. All points have the same velocity
3. A line through the body does not change its direction.
4. All points move on congruent curves.
An example of curvilinear translation is the motion of a gondola on a ferris wheel. It meets all of the above requirements.
Gordon moans:
You just confirmed that the sphere cannot rotate wrt the rod, ergo it has no angular velocity about its COM.
No Gordon. If a body is fixed to a another rotating body, it obviously cannot rotate wrt to that body. But it can rotate wrt an inertial reference frame that is not rotating, which is what it does in this case.
Snape, anyone competent with basic physics would understand that simple problem.
But they would also understand it is poorly worded. So, tossing it back to you, why is it poorly worded?
When you answer, I will give the correct answer for what they are trying to ask, as well as the correct answer for their poor wording.
Wrong again, SGW. As Beanie indicated, the sphere is translating.
Gordon prefers to describe it as “curvilinear”, which works fine. Orbital motion does not fit exactly into usual terms and definitions. I prefer “instantaneously translating”. The result has to be the same — all points have the same instantaneous velocity.
Non-spinners, whats the correct answer?
Let me answer for Gordon. According to Gordon, objects that have no mass are invisible. So the rock would fall since it’s not connected to the measuring stick.
Clint hurls:
As Beanie indicated, the sphere is translating.
He never said that. And you were unable to find the quote.
Lying to prove a point is quite desperate.
Bingo!
Starts at 0:45, as I’ve already stated, SGW.
Being an idiot, you may need help figuring that out.
Clint is such a moron he does not know what a “quote” is.
Give me the exact sentence where “beanie” says the sphere is translating. Give me the word for word quote.
Hint: you won’t find it, because he never said that.
“Would you try speaking English?”
It is in English Gordon; if you understood this stuff then you would understand what I wrote.
SGW keeps asking the same nonsense. That’s because he has nothing. He keeps asking, so he can try to make it appear that I’m not answering. It’s just another of his failed tricks.
He keeps asking for the “velocity calculations”. But there are no “calculations”. All points on an orbiting, non-rotating, body have the same instantaneous velocity. SGW can’t understand that, which leads to his next nonsense.
He wants the “exact quote” from his video. I guess he expects me to transcribe the video for him? It’s just another of his distractions, because he has nothing. His video has failed him. The Cornell U. definition of “translation: has failed him. Everything he tries fails him.
How long before he repeats these failed tactics?
Clint yelps:
But there are no calculations. All points on an orbiting, non-rotating, body have the same instantaneous velocity.
This is hilarious. Clint has determined that it is impossible to calculate the velocities for points on the ball on a string problem. What a loon! How do you know they have the same velocity if one cannot provide a calculation???
Imagine Clint as a professor:
Class, we know the angular velocity for this sphere, but due to circumstance beyond our control, the velocities are impossible to calculate. Trust me. I know!
That is so pathetic. How much lower can you stoop?? LMAO.
How long before he repeats these failed tactics?
23 minutes
Does ClintR think he’s fooling people who read this blog? Do they think Clint is a genius or something??
No. They think, “What a moron this guy is cuz he cannot even provide simple calculations to support his viewpoint”.
Same failed tactics from SGW.
ClintR says:
Snape, anyone competent with basic physics would understand that simple problem.
But gives no answer.
Non-spinners, whats the correct answer?
https://ibb.co/9tXD9sh
Snape, my first requirement far exceeded you abilities. I keep forgetting how incompetent you are.
So just admit you don’t have a clue about physics, and I’ve give the simple answer.
Wrong answer.
If you can’t solve this simple problem then It’s no surprise that the parallel axis theorem is like Greek to you.
Thanks for playing.
Snape, that’s close enough to you admitting you’re an idiot. I accept your admission.
So, the answer, as promised, is “c) 1kg”.
I can guarantee ClintR looked up the solution, because you can find the answer anywhere online:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141214104935AAhjyVz
Otherwise he would be clueless. as is his normal state.
Clint can’t even perform a velocity calc for the far and near side of the moon. What makes you think he has the brains to solve this problem?
SGW doesn’t realize that comments have accompanying times. I solved the simple problem in minutes. SGW took over 5 hours to find a solution online. So, he accuses me of not being able to solve the simple problem!
He thinks he’s brilliant because he can falsely accuse. And, he can’t ever figure it out.
Great entertainment.
Sure looks like the much hoped-for strong(ish?) la Nina is emerging.
BoM has already called it.
The MEI index shows sustained and strong la Nina conditions since July.
NOAA is two months’ data away from calling a full blown la Nina. The values are midrange, but could go more extreme according to many forecasts.
JMA is 3 months away from calling a full blown la Nina, but their projections, like others, see la Nina conditions persisting for at least another 2 to 3 months, possibly longer.
So far the conditions don’t seem to have impacted global temps, which is a little unusual but not unheard of. Usually global temps respond after a couple of months (though the lag from peak ENSO to peak global temperature can be as much as 3-5 months).
barry, like someone once said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”.
But the MEI graph is interesting. It appears the El Niños are decreasing both in number and intensity, while the La Niñas are increasing both in number and intensity. That doesn’t fit the agenda.
You might want to make a screen shot before they “fix” the data.
So ClintR does know how to find a quote.
But he STILL has not found the quote from the professor where the professor allegedly says the sphere is translating. Just another one of his many lies.
What does this tell you about a person who intentionally lies to prove a point. That is the pinnacle of desperation. He knows he’s lying, otherwise he would have found the quote.
These flat-earthers are pretty sick people.
Same failed tactics from SGW.
Hello barry
thanks for providing us with valuable data instead of these childish, boring ‘Scharmützel’ (I love the German word for ‘skirmish’).
The eternal discussion between Spinners and Non-Spinners is above all completely redundant, because it is much too trivial and hence by no means useful to prove or to disprove Moon’s spin about its axis.
To do that you have to leave their infantile coin, merry-go-round and curvilinear corner.
You must go deep into trigonometry and algebra instead, by successively transforming daily observations of e.g. apparent Moon spot positions into their real seleno-centric latitude and longitude, as is done since centuries.
Then you suddenly see that the spots, which apparently stay nearly at the same places, in fact move daily by about 13 of 360 degrees.
As opposed to Bart’s strange opinion, Moon’s spin has nothing to do with any reference to fixed (or ‘distant’) stars. The spin’s period may vary depending on the reference (sidereal, draconitic or synodic); but its intrinsic value of course doesn’t depend of the reference chosen.
*
Now coming back to La Nina @ JMA: when we look at Fig.2 (TCC’s ENSO forecast probabilities)
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
we see that since a few months, the bottommost yellow/blue ratio has moved from 20/80, then 30/70 updated last month to 40/60, up to currently 50/50.
How this has developed during the last 6 months is (IMHO) certainly not indicating any increase of La Nina.
And when we look at the MEI values, I have some little doubt that they could move down to what happened in 2010/11:
2010 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.5 -0.2 -1.3 -2.4 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -2 -1.9
2011 -1.8 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -1.3 -1.1 -0.9 -0.9 -1.2 -1.4 -1.2 -1.2
J.-P. D.
We know Moon does not rotate about its axis, by simple observation. It has the same basic motion as a ball on a string. One side always faces the center of the orbit. The false idea that Moon rotates in sync with its orbital motion came from astrology, and has never been corrected. Idiots like Bindidon prefer to go with astrology, rather than thinking for themselves.
Look at the effort Bindidon goes to, trying to pervert reality:
“You must go deep into trigonometry and algebra instead, by successively transforming daily observations of e.g. apparent Moon spot positions into their real seleno-centric latitude and longitude, as is done since centuries.”
Humorous hogwash from a “science-guy” wannabe.
ClintR “knows” the Moon does not rotate about its own internal axis, by simple observation which is wrong because by simple observation the Moon does have day/night cycles: QED the moon rotates on its own internal axis just like Tesla wrote:
“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/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571256
ball4…”by simple observation the Moon does have day/night cycles”
Easily explained by its translational motion in its orbit. A jetliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 would experience the same day/night effect and we know it cannot rotate 360 degrees about about its COM or it would crash.
Which also proves the world orbiting jetliner is observed to rotate on its own lateral axis once per orbit and doesn’t crash.
Understand Tesla, Gordon: “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
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571256
Gordon squeals:
Easily explained by its translational motion in its orbit.
For the thousandth time. The moon does not exhibit translational motion. That is a false belief of DREMT, you and ClintR. It makes you clowns look like idiots. The far side of the moon, despite what DREMT, Gordon and ClintR say, has a velocity greater than the near side, because the far side of the moon travels a longer distance than the near side of the moon in the same time period.
binny…”You must go deep into trigonometry and algebra instead, by successively transforming daily observations of e.g. apparent Moon spot positions into their real seleno-centric latitude and longitude, as is done since centuries.”
That’s odd, I can see it just by observation through emulating the Earth and Moon with two coins. Anyone who wanted to see it could do the same but they insist on rushing off to authority figures to tell them what they are seeing.
The moon doesn’t touch the Earth Gordon, as you mistakenly do with your coins.
Leave a space between them, rotate the smaller coin once on its own axis (thru C) as it orbits the stationary coin once on an external axis thru that stationary coin (O) and you will observe the moon (small orbiting coin) motion just as Tesla proves for any arbitrary mass:
“the (orbiting coin) 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/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571256
binny…”The eternal discussion between Spinners and Non-Spinners is above all completely redundant, because it is much too trivial and hence by no means useful to prove or to disprove Moons spin about its axis”.
It is very useless for proving the spinners have no sense of logic and that they are prone to accepting the ideas of authority figures. That serves to prove their views on anthropogenic global warming are equally illogical and based on appeals to authority.
“It is very useless for proving the spinners have no sense of logic and that they are prone to accepting the ideas of authority figures.”
Your cult throws up an old Tesla newspaper article as supporting evidence for your case (note the irony of the appeal to authority!); not to mention the debunked horse on mgr and ball on a string nonsense, neither of which can explain the nods and wobbles of the real Moon which you can observe with the naked eye.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004700/a004768/phases_2020_fancy_360p30.mp4
Robertson
” It is very useless for proving the spinners have no sense of logic and that they are prone to accepting the ideas of authority figures. ”
Here again and again, you show how dumb and simple-minded you think.
If you had a bit more brain, you would think, and possibly understand, that your gullible belief in Testla’s superficial paper is an appeal to authority as well.
People like you always search for contrarian ideas. And all these Contrarians are, whether you want or not, the authorities you appeal to.
People like you are named in Germany ‘Erbsenhirne’. Perfect fit.
J.-P. D.
JD, the thing you’re missing is that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. That’s a false belief not based in science. It came from astrology.
To believe in Moon rotation, you have to ignore the physics of orbital motion, which is correctly modeled by a ball on a string, swinging in a circle.
As you can see, barry, the two of us are fortunate enough to enjoy the visit of a person who is both an eminent astrologer with deepest knowledge of history and, moreover, an internationally recognized weather specialist.
I feel almost ashamed to add a tiny bit to his noble view of ENSO, by extending the observed period to what was reconstructed by the MEI team on the base of early data sets:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sdOmLZVz_1BkKf9tx4JqvNzOYaF9uUmb/view
Perhaps the professor was very busy and accidentally overlooked the data that I had luckily saved in my climate database.
I thought it wouldn’t be wrong to show how El Nino and la Nina compare over a slightly larger period of time.
By the way, barry: it is very interesting – and, yes: satisfying – to note that, whilst most commenters rather unprofessionally speak about the 2016 Super El Nino because they mistakenly identify ENSO to UAH’s data, the experienced professor visibly acknowledges and confirms the El Nino decline since 1982.
*
Now, as far as the lunar history is concerned, all I can do is bow to his recognized authority, and receive its excellent criticism in full humility.
*
Ha! das hat aber wirklich Spaß gemacht.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, see if you can translate this into a foreign language of your choosing:
“He’s clueless, yet smug”.
What about this one, Mr Professor of Clim & astrology?
” Han er uklar, men likevel selvfølge “
It appears the El Niños are decreasing both in number and intensity, while the La Niñas are increasing both in number and intensity. That doesn’t fit the agenda.
The amount of nonsense piled into a short space is a wonder to behold.
Here is the longer-term view. It appears el Ninos are getting more intense.
While the IPCC suggests that el Ninos could become more intense with time in a warming climate, they assign a low confidence to this projection.
‘Agenda’ – the usual charged language made by people who want to make discussions political rather than factual.
Hi barry, thanks for quoting me correctly. Although a little credit would be nice….
I agree putting that ENSO nonsense in such a short space is a wonder. That’s why you should save a screen shot. It’s likely going to change. You know that agenda is quite a forcing.
Speaking of agendas, are you still claiming a ball on a string is rotating about its axis? You’ve got to hold to that agenda, even when it departs from reality.
Thanks for the MEI long-term graph, Bindidon. I didn’t know there was data back to 1871. That’s quite a feat considering the number of variables required to compile the index.
So la Ninas *may* have increased over the period, while el Ninos remained stable. Nominally this would have had a slight cooling effect on long term temperatures. But the slope is so shallow that it’s unlikely to have had any impact at all, never mind the fact that this system redistributes energy, rather than adds or subtracts to the global total.
barry
You’re welcome, glad to help a little bit.
Here is the link to MEI’s historical data:
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
Don’t wonder about the differences between that data and my graph: its data was displaced for common use with anomalies built wrt the same reference period (1981-2010).
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Non-spinners, what’s the correct answer?
https://ibb.co/0Dq3gyb
Okay Snape, I’ve got the answer. But, it’s gonna cost you this time.
It’s interesting that you’re only asking “non-spinners”. You obviously know that “spinners” wouldn’t have a clue.
It’s interesting that you’re only asking “non-spinners”.
Well, this comment came your cult:
“If the rod is massless then it has no atoms therefore it is invisible. So, you have a sphere at the end of an invisible rod rotating about an axis with no visible means of how it remains in orbit.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571299
It’s obvious that your cult needs to reach for the mentalfloss.
Snape, attempting insults and false accusations only verifies you have NOTHING.
Okay HuffingMan.
snape…”Well, this comment came your cult:
“If the rod is massless then it has no atoms therefore it is invisible”.
***
Mass = resistance that a body of mass gives to a force trying to change its velocity
matter = any substance that has mass and occupies space.
Ergo, a massless rod has no mass and occupies no space, therefore it has no atoms. Like the parrot sketch in Monty Python where the dead parrot was declared an ex-parrot, a massless rod is an ex-rod.
In other words, a massless rod could not support a sphere at one end or be attached to an axis on its other end.
Beanie, the kid prof, ignored the mass of the rod and moved the COM to the centre of the sphere, then claimed the sphere is rotating about that COM.
In reality, the mass of the rod matters a lot, both for support of the sphere and for the location of the COG of the unit. If the rod had enough mass, the COM of the unit would move toward the rod, even into the rod. Would the sphere then be rotating in a lop-sided manner about the COM, requiring the rod to rotate with it while the rod was still attached to the axis on its other end?
Do you spinners have no sense of reality?
I smell a big Herring of the red variety.
I smell BS of the brown variety.
You would think the eponymous commenter would show a little decorum in deference to our host!
Gordon squeals:
In other words, a massless rod could not support a sphere at one end or be attached to an axis on its other end.
You are being stupid as usual. It is a common practice with physics problems to use massless rods and massless strings. Just perform a google search and you will find them in textbooks and lecture notes. Nobody ever says the rod or string will not support a mass and then not perform the calculation. Only a complete idiot would do that.
Gordon moans:
Beanie, the kid prof, ignored the mass of the rod and moved the COM to the centre of the sphere, then claimed the sphere is rotating about that COM.
Even if the professor would have given the rod a mass, the problem would have been solved the same way, except that the kinetic energy contribution for rod would be added. You use the parallel axis theorem and break the parts into components. See the following on how they calculate the moment of inertia for a rod and sphere:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tdisc.html
So they would not find a new COM for the whole system. They would just add the kinetic energy the rod adds to the system. The sphere would still be rotating on its center of mass.
This does not surprise me that you make stupid comments. You just don’t get kinematics, just like you don’t get curvilinear translation.
SGW, it’s NOT about Kinematics! Kinematics does not include orbital motion. That’s what you can’t understand. If you use Kinematics, you get the wrong answers for orbital motion. That’s why you believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis. You got the wrong answer.
You found a good definition of Kinematics from Cornell U. But, you ignore the part where orbital motion is excluded.
You found the MSU video where Beanie describes the motion as “translation”, but you pretend he didn’t say that, although he states it several times beginning at 0:45.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you refuse to accept your own sources. So, you can’t learn.
“Orbital motion” is one of your made-up terms. Total BS. An orbit is a path.
And you could not provide the quote from the professor. It’s easy to do. Review the video and give the exact quote where he says the sphere is translating. He does not say that. Because the sphere does not meet the requirements for translation at all. Which is why he would not be stupid enough (like you) to make that claim. You are just as dumb as Gordon in regards to translation. The sphere changes orientation. Curvilinear translation requires the object to NOT change orientation at all. A line through the body has to remain pointing in the same direction at all times for curvilinear translation.
And you STILL have not provided any velocity calcs for the ball on a string
“You found the MSU video where Beanie describes the motion as “translation”, but you pretend he didn’t say that, although he states it several times beginning at 0:45.“
This is what the professor says, CLOWN:
we know that total kinetic energy can be thought of as the translational kinetic energy associated with the center of mass….
The translation component keeps track of how the center of mass moves
I have to do this for you because you are a useless idiot incapable of performing the simplest of tasks:
His reference to translation in only in regards to the center of mass. He NEVER says the object as a whole is translating, because its not. The translational component of kinetic energy for a sphere is 1/2(M)(V-squared). So you have to find the velocity of the center of mass. That’s all he’s doing.
When a point moves along a path, it’s movement is always referred to as translating, because points do not rotate about themselves. For example, you can have an object rotating about its center of mass, and the center of mass translating along a curve. But that is not curvilinear translation.
This is way above your head and will just confuse you more, which will be a good thing.
ClintR opens his mouth and makes a fool of himself, his typical MO:
but you pretend he didnt say that, although he states it several times beginning at 0:45
You are more of an idiot than I ever thought. You are incapable apparently of listening to the video and comprehending what he says. Can you even tie your shoe? I have never met such a dumbass. I thought Gordon was dumb, an he is. But you surpass him by leaps and bounds!
You can’t even perform a simple velocity calculation. You couldn’t even accurately quote the professor. You don’t understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation, because the sphere is clearly not translating curvilinearly!
Finally SGW admits that the sphere is translating.
He finally got there, but he’s very slow….
Robertson
” That’s odd, I can see it just by observation through emulating the Earth and Moon with two coins. ”
Why don’t you admit that you simple-minded ’emulation’ is THE problem?
Answer: You are too much a coward to admit it.
If you had a tiny bit of courage, you would, instead of staying on your stoopid coin joke, start the same job as I’m doing since two weeks, namely to try to understand what Tobias Mayer did and so pretty good explained in his treatise:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
You can’t imagine how poorish and stoopid you look when writing, in the Pseudoskeptics’s usual mix of dumb arrogance and ignorance, such trash like:
” Mayer used a statistical form of highly theoretical analysis but he had no idea what he was doing. Otherwise, he would have noted that the Moon is not rotating on its axis. ”
You didn’t even read more than a few lines of his work, you coward! And it’s ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY pages long.
Show that you have BALLS, Robertson, try to obtain the same job written in a language you understand, and LEARN.
J.-P. D.
When you are ready to take a break from the flat moon debate check the catastrophic sea ice melting , is just like the experts predicted.
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2020_day_349_1981-2010.png
How is this catastrophic when the sea ice extent for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 are all lower than the current sea ice extent?
It is said a large segment of population is completely absent of sense of humor, so it is not your fault and you get a pass.
Yes, the sea ice is exactly where it has always been.
“… sea ice extent for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 are all lower than the current sea ice extent…”
How can anything be avaluated with such vague terms. What does ‘current’ mean. The ice coverage on the day this comment was made?
Let’s say current means the most recent month.
https://tinyurl.com/yar8d34n
Comment is wrong. Last November was second lowest in the record.
Let’s say it’s the most recent daily value.
https://tinyurl.com/zaasnoz
Comment is again wrong – the most recent daily value is the 2nd lowest in the record.
You can slice and dice that so many different ways.
The proper answer, of course, is that it is about the long-term trend and if it has changed in the last few years. We can get a simple visual on the last 5 years using a basic linear regression.
https://tinyurl.com/ybe6336d
Using as much data as possible (the only criteria I set for this analysis), and with 2 weeks left of this year, it appears that the downward trend has continued unabated.
As usual, Eben has it with some sarcasm. No reason for any alarmism.
The look at departures from the mean of 1981-2010
1. Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
2. Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view
3. Global
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1krR_CcYUC__CbQcerOSsYrL4415VVHPP/view
J.-P. D.
Non-spinners, whats the correct answer?
Kinetic Energy: https://ibb.co/4gsXvtp
Another easy one, Snape.
Just as easy as understanding a ball on a string is a model of orbital motion.
Why didn’t Tesla present the complete analysis of his Figure 4 example? Was it incompetence or fraud? It is a puzzle.
https://tinyurl.com/Tesla-Fig-4-analized
You’re taking things you don’t understand out of context, Snape.
Is that incompetence or fraud? Or both?
Okay HuffingMan!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-572583
It is very useful for proving the non-spinners have no sense of logic and that they are prone to accepting the ideas of authority figures. That serves to prove their views on all matters are equally illogical and based on appeals to authority. Q.E.D.
Your link does not seem to work…but Tesla briefly discussed four different ways of determining the kinetic energy of a rotating mass. The parallel axis theorem (Figure 4) he described as “chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences”. Funny how none of you have mentioned that part. Is that incompetence or fraud? It is a puzzle.
No puzzle, Tesla is successful in his endeavor to dispel the notion that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own internal axis, since for a generalized mass Tesla writes:
“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.”
Note that Ball4’s quote is from the text accompanying Figure 4, which as I mentioned Tesla described as “chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
There is no doubt that Ball4 is a fraud.
The fraud is in this statement:
“Only, when all particles of the body have the same velocity, does the product ½ M V^2 specify a physical fact and is numerically and descriptively accurate.”
This is only true for the case of Fig. 4 if V= (R)(omega)= (radius to CM)(angular velocity).
He was referring to Fig. 1 when he made that statement.
Here is another version of the same:
“Still another way to compute the kinetic energy is illustrated in Fig. 4, in which case the quantity I is given in terms of the moment of inertia Ie about another axis parallel to O and passing thru the center of gravity C of mass M. In conformity with this the energy of motion E = ½ M V2 + ½ Ie ω2 in which equation V is the velocity of the center of gravity.”
He is either confused or trying to obfuscate.
Snape is so confused it’s not possible to help him.
In his comment above, he had this quote:
“Only, when all particles of the body have the same velocity, does the product ½ M V^2 specify a physical fact and is numerically and descriptively accurate.”
But, he called that quote “fraud”!
That quote is NOT fraud. The quote is referring to translational motion, in which all particles have the same velocity. That is NOT what happens in rotational motion.
Snape, Ball4, SGW, and the rest of the idiots STILL have no clue about the physics involved. They are still making the same mistakes as months ago.
HuffingMan should have read the Tesla article before opining.
Nice try to divert attention away from your attack on science, Snape.
If you were as fascinated with learning physics as you are with fake names, Snape, Doris, Tyson, HuffingMan, etc., you might be able to make an intelligent comment someday.
One can always hope….
Regardless, whether Tesla was confused or trying to obfuscate, it is clear that he used the wrong form of the velocity vector in the first term of the Kinetic Energy equation.
No Snape.
Transitional KE = (1/2)mv^2.
Tesla, and science, have it right. YOU don’t have a clue.
“Tesla, and science, have it right.”
Yes ClintR, you agree for a generalized mass Tesla and science do write correctly that:
“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.”
https://ibb.co/2dB4M9K
Since angular velocity is (delta-theta/time)*Radius, where theta is the central angle at O, and in synchronous rotation orbital and rotational periods are the same, it is a simple calculation for the system total kinetic energy.
Well, yes, simple to most in the field; not simple though for the three-ring circus of ClintR, Gordon, and DREMT.
Tesla’s general state of confusion is evident again in his Figure 5, https://ibb.co/PgZmkH6
“In this case, granted that there is absolutely no friction the kinetic energy of each ball will be given by the product of M V2 not approximately, but with mathematical rigor. If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis.”
The ball on a string is correctly classified as a rotation about a fixed axis, an axis that is external to the ball itself. It is one single motion, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. To break it down into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the ball about that center of mass, is to treat it as a general plane motion. Which would be incorrect.
Yes Tyson 4:49pm, that follows since for a generalized mass Tesla writes:
“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.”
With Tesla’s wheel objects “absolutely no friction” the second term is zero about axis thru C. Tesla again: “If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes” the second term becomes nonzero and the total KE increments up “the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its (C) axis.”
This is a great example of Tesla being successful in his “endeavor to dispel the notion that the moon” doesn’t rotate on its own internal axis C along with translating in orbit about axis thru O: “The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
So, Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, shall we stipulate that Tesla appears confused by his own examples?
I love the blatantly dishonest and coordinated attempt to rubbish Tesla’s article by quoting snippets out of context.
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow. But it does not tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry.”
In other words, keep reading…
DREMT, Tesla is pointing out don’t believe DREMT’s lying eyes, rely instead on Tesla’s endeavor to prove for a generalized orbiting massive object:
“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.”
Note that Ball4’s quote is from the text accompanying Figure 4, which as I mentioned Tesla described as “chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
There is no doubt that Ball4 is a fraud.
Transitional KE = (1/2)mv^2.
Tesla, and science, have it right. Snape and Ball4 don’t have a clue.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 5:10PM
The velocity vector of an arbitrary point on the perimeter of the ball in case two is changing direction at the same rate as the spokes are rotating. This change in velocity is an acceleration (a=dv/dt) which means additional energy is required to overcome the force causing this acceleration.
Translational KE, ClintR. The sum of orbital translational KE plus rotational KE on internal axis is the generalized orbital mass Total KE per Tesla’s wheel concrete example.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 5:10PM
In the first case of Fig 5, the velocity vector of an arbitrary point on the perimeter of the ball appears to have the same magnitude and direction at all times and thus no acceleration (a=dv/dt =0). Yet Tesla believes the two cases yield the same kinetic energy all else being equal.
Tesla seems confused.
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased”
Yes, when “fixt” there is added rotational KE, the second term about C becomes nonzero and the total wheel KE increments up “the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its (C) axis.” Thus Tesla proves the moon rotates on its own axis about C.
“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.”
Once again, I love the blatantly dishonest and coordinated attempt to rubbish Tesla’s article by quoting snippets out of context.
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow. But it does not tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry.”
In other words, keep reading…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 5:51 PM
Yes, what is the source of that added kinetic energy?
Answer: rotation about the ball’s center of mass which was absent in the first case.
Next paragraph:
“To begin with, observe that when a mass, say the armature of an electric motor, rotating with the angular velocity ω, is reversed, its speed is -ω and the difference ω (-ω) = 2 ω. Now, in fixing the ball to the spoke, the change of angular velocity is only ω; therefore, an additional velocity ω would have to be imparted to it in order to cause a clockwise rotation of the ball on its axis in the true significance of the word. The kinetic energy would then be equal to the sum of the energies of the translatory and axial motions, not merely in the abstract mathematical meaning, but as a physical fact. I am well aware that, according to the prevailing opinion, when the ball is free on the pivots it does not turn on its axis at all and only rotates with the angular velocity of the frame when rigidly attached to the same, but the truth will appear upon a closer examination of this kind of movement.”
The fallacy of moon nonrotation, an illusion of the eye, will become manifest on further inquiry as shown in Tesla’s wheel/roundball example and Fig. 4.
DREMT has long been misreading Tesla prose. DREMT should have instead endeavored to follow Tesla’s physics.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 6:00 PM
The more I read it the more obvious it becomes that Tesla ended up debunking himself.
Tyson, read Tesla’s prose both ways, it is possible to read in the same way as his examples. Tesla is not specific, probably translation issue leaving his prose open to interpretation but his concrete wheel example and Fig. 4 are not, at all. DREMT reads the translated prose only one way, read it in light of Tesla’s physics.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 6:08 PM
“I am well aware that, according to the prevailing opinion, when the ball is free on the pivots it does not turn on its axis at all and only rotates with the angular velocity of the frame when rigidly attached to the same…”
It is not an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.
In the first case of Fig 5, the velocity vector of an arbitrary point on the perimeter of the ball has the same magnitude and direction at all times.
No, Tyson, you are taking the parts of the article in which Tesla explains various reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, as though he were arguing it himself, as his own opinion. You are doing a Ball4, in other words. He keeps telling you to read on…Tesla did not think the Moon rotates on its own axis, nor did he debunk himself…
Ball4 6:21 PM
Yes, Teslas prose says one thing but his Math tells a different story.
The idiots believe that can pervert reality by attacking Tesla. They believe they can pervert reality by claiming the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
That’s why they’re idiots.
(Secret the idiots don’t know: The SI unit for magnetic flux density was named after Tesla.}
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 6:24 PM
https://ibb.co/PgZmkH6
Tell me what your interpretation of the two cases in Fig 5. In your own words, without quoting Tesla.
Dispute my 4:56 PM comment.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 6:33 PM
So, you agree that Tesla was so confused by his own examples that he ended up debunking himself and, you now want to move on to the ball on a string?
No. What I want you to do is move on from the part of the article in which Tesla discusses why people erroneously think the Moon rotates on its own axis to the next part of the article, where he begins his arguments against that idea. Additional arguments, to the first two articles he wrote.
I just thought that since you were making demands, I would point out that nobody had responded to my comment from nearly two hours ago.
Tesla moaned:
I am well aware that, according to the prevailing opinion, when the ball is free on the pivots it does not turn on its axis at all and only rotates with the angular velocity of the frame when rigidly attached to the same, but the truth will appear upon a closer examination of this kind of movement.
At least Tesla understood the prevailing opinion. You clowns don’t. And now it is no longer “prevailing opinion”. It’s established science and physics. Just like the professor and his proof regarding the rod and sphere problem. The sphere rotates on its own axis, as well as the ball whirling on a string. There is no controversy there, it’s established kinematics. If you don’t understand the science, it’s not our problem.
Tesla never formally submitted his papers to the scientific community for review. His opinions were never proven via the scientific method.
4:56 PM is established kinematics.
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
December 16, 2020 at 6:33 PM
Dispute my 4:56 PM comment.”
Your 4:56 PM comment is analogous to Tesla’s second Case in figure 5.
As I said before, the velocity vector of an arbitrary point on the perimeter of the ball in this case is changing direction at the same rate as the spokes are rotating. This change in velocity is an acceleration (a=dv/dt) which means additional energy is required to overcome the force causing this acceleration.
Incidentally, with the ball on a string example, by making the length of the string infinitesimally small and then increasing it while rotating at the same angular speed one can see the varying magnitude of the force acting on the system.
I repeat my 4:56 PM comment, which refutes your response and settles the issue.
I agree the issue is settled.
As Tesla even admitted that he did not follow the prevailing science which indicated the ball rotated on its own axis.
The current science is even more rigorous than in Tesla’s day that the ball rotates on its own axis.
It is settled that Tesla has his own unproven hypothesis that does not abide by the conventions of standard physics and kinematics.
It is settled that Tesla has a rabid following of miscreants whose proof consists of yelling, moaning, bolding text, barking, capitalizing text, shouting slogans, and redefining established scientific terms.
So I agree. The issue is settled.
4:56 PM.
I agree that Tesla and his followers do not adhere to the standard conventions of physics. Here are some quotes of the Tesla cultists:
You cant use Kinematics for orbital motion, or you will get the wrong answers. – Clint
That does take place in a rigid body with the particles but they are constrained to complete the same distance in the same time because they are stuck together. Gordon
all points on Moon, or the ball on a string, of the wooden horse have the same instantaneous velocity. – Clint
So what have we learned so far? Throw out kinematics. All points on a rigid body have the same velocity.
More to follow.
OK, SGW. Sorry for your loss.
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible and then it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow. But it does not tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry.”
This is a good example of Tesla NOT MAKING SENSE. His example is not consistent with his claim. The opposite in fact.
It shows that when the balls are screwed down, and moving like the Moon, they now have MORE kinetic energy than when not.
Why so they? Because as he discussed elsewhere, they have now have BOTH translational and rotational kinetic energy.
Indeed he says that this supports the belief that “in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow.”
Yes exactly. Thanks Nicola!
“But it does not tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry.”
Thus he promises to LATER tell us why this is only apparent to the eye and a fallacy.
But he NEVER EVER does!
Nate, Tesla (or his translator) is imprecise: “it” could refer to rotating or nonrotating, we don’t know. Your last quote can be read both ways but all Tesla’s physical examples discussed are consistent with his proving our Moon is rotating on its own axis C as well as orbiting O external axis.
Nate and Ball4 demonstrate both their inability to understand Tesla, and orbital motion.
Great entertainment.
As expected, Clint offers no rebuttal just insults..
Nate, it’s not my fault if you get insulted by reality, now is it?
Feel free to back up your claims by ‘explaining’ which parts I dont understand, and why.
Of course you won’t. Trolls neither have the ability nor feel the need to back up their false claims.
Reality can’t insult Nate, ClintR insults Nate.
ClintR should listen and learn from Tesla’s reality science example endeavors (wheel and arbitrary mass) to dispel the abstract notion of the illusion our moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis thru C while orbiting earth axis thru O.
Nate, it has all been explained to you idiots numerous times. You still claim that the ball on a string is rotating about its axis! SGW has even invented the bogus math to “prove” the ball is rotating! You people are idiots, trying to pervert reality.
It’s so easy to prove the ball is not rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around the ball!
You have to deny reality to support your cult beliefs. You’re all idiots.
Feel as insulted as you want.
Tesla’s reality examples demonstrate that the ball on a string is rotating about its axis C! Once per orbit of O. If the ball didn’t rotate about C once per orbit of O, the string would wrap the ball!
Listen and learn ClintR.
ClintR aka Tonto the Clown 11:13 AM
“It’s so easy to prove the ball is not rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around the ball!”
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
The issue is settled, the Spinners lost again. Oh well.
“You still claim that the ball on a string is rotating about its axis!”
Nothing to do with the point made in my post on Tesla.
As I noted, Tesla correctly points out that locking the ball down so it rotates like the Moon, it then has Extra kinetic energy.
You apparently dont get that, and dont get why it matters.
“The issue is settled”
..if you mindlessly appeal to authority.
Apparently you think its settled when Tesla mathematically proves the Moon spins, while declaring it is an illusion.
Nate must continue to pervert reality to protect his cult’s false belief. What an idiot.
He has to claim the ball on a string is rotating about its axis, although that is easily disproved.
Now, he is trying to claim that Tesla believed Moon was rotating about its axis.
They just try anything, but reality always wins. And they remain idiots.
ClintR 11:13 AM
“It’s so easy to prove the ball is not rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around the ball!
You have to deny reality to support your cult beliefs. You’re all idiots.”
https://ibb.co/MkCsZdK
Poor Tonto doesn’t know that his ball-on-a-string experiment is a classic example of synchronous orbit-rotation. The ball has an angular acceleration limited by torque supplied by the string. As long as it remains connected to the center of orbit via the string, the ball will rotate once about its center of mass for each orbit around the idiot spinning the thing.
Wrong on all, Snape.
The string doesn’t provide torque. And if the ball were rotating on its axis, the string would wrap up.
ball4…”Which also proves the world orbiting jetliner is observed to rotate on its own lateral axis once per orbit and doesnt crash”.
A jetliner maintaining a constant altitude of 35,000 feet has no means of rotating about any axis without pilot intervention. It is driven by motors that produce a linear velocity and gravity does the rest, turning it gradually into an orbit.
In order for it to rotate vertically about its COG, the pilot must apply the elevators in the rear tail plane to rotate it upward or downward. If the pilot wants the aircraft to roll about its nose-tail axis, he activates the flaps on the wings in opposite directions. In order to move right/left, he activates the flap in the vertical stabilizer in the tail section.
If none of these devices are activated, the plane will flying in a straight line. That emulates the motion of the Moon, which flies at constant velocity in a straight line. For both the aircraft and the Moon, gravity acting on either pulls them into an orbital path.
Therefore it is incorrect for you to claim the aircraft is rotating, especially laterally, which means side to side on a horizontal plane. Unless the aircraft experiences turbulence, a change in air pressure that can cause the aircraft to fall vertically, there is no reason it cannot maintain an orbit at 35,000 feet, with no local rotation while it’s nose-tail axis points in every direction of the compass as it orbits.
Do you seriously think a pilot has to sit there at 35,000 feet adjusting an aircraft to follow the curvature of the Earth? There is no rotation whatsoever under such conditions about the aircraft COG.
Besides…where’s the pilot on the Moon, adjusting the Moon to follow the curvature of the Earth?
“Do you seriously think a pilot has to sit there at 35,000 feet adjusting an aircraft to follow the curvature of the Earth?”
The pilot or autopilot sits there constantly maintaining the assigned pressure altitude of 35,000 feet with altimeter set to 29.92 standard, Gordon, with control inputs for all 6 DOF. After one orbit those control inputs will avg. out to exactly one complete rotation on the airplane lateral axis if it maintains 35,000 feet pressure altitude. Listen to, and learn from, Tesla as the airplane is a generalized mass fitting his proof (2DOF case):
“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, you keep using that quote as if you believe you know what it’s about.
Obviously you have no clue.
Total KE = Translational KE + Rotational KE
But if Rotational KE = 0, then Total KE = Translational KE.
(Let’s see if Ball4 can learn anything. I tend to think not.)
Yes ClintR, “The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.” as you point out translational KE from (orbiting O) + rotational (rotating about object’s own internal axis C).
Note that Ball4’s quote is from the text accompanying Figure 4, which as I mentioned Tesla described as “chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
There is no doubt that Ball4 is a fraud.
Actually DREMT cuts off an important part of the quote about DREMT’s abstract idea which Tesla then provides proof the Moon’s rotation on its own axis DOES increment the Moon’s total KE.
“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 then proves the rotation of the moon is not an illusion nor an abstract idea with “additional evidences” by showing his wheel increments in total KE when “the pivots are screwed tight”.
DREMT loses DREMT’s debate with Tesla as is common when Tesla’s words are quoted directly.
This is from Tesla’s first article:
"…the moon does not, and cannot revolve on its axis."
"The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable."
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis
DREMT, Tesla writes “”axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind.” such as DREMT’s. Tesla then endeavors to give the moon’s rotation on its own axis thru C while translating in orbit about axis thru O concrete physical meaning and dispel the abstract ideas, notions and illusions.
Tesla performs that “dispel” with concrete “additional evidences” such as Teslas wheel and the arbitrary generalized mass arguments proving with concrete objects for an arbitrary generalized orbiting massive object:
“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.”
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Ball4’s misrepresentation is utterly shameless. He is the most dishonest commenter posting on this site.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis is an illusion of the eye and proves moon rotates on its own axis with his wheel concrete example as pointed out in Tyson’s comment & verified with Tesla’s own words not DREMT’s.
Ball4 is, simply, a disgrace.
Ball4-on-a-string proves Moon is not rotating about its axis.
To an observer in the room, the ball on string rotates on its own axis C once per orbit of external axis O, just like Tesla proves, or the string would wrap the ball. See Fig. 4 for any arbitrary mass & Tesla’s wheel example for his proof. Ignore Tesla’s prose, as it is imprecise, can mean two opposing things at once.
Ignore Ball4’s prose, as it is imprecise, can mean two opposing things at once.
Tesla sad it – I believe it – That settles it!
Looks like I missed a lot of deep thought the last few days. See y’all in a year to watch the argument continue.
Today would be a good day for ClintR to release his proof debunking tidal locking. Let’s recall what he said November 13, 2020 at 9:46 AM, it’s a humdinger!
“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?”
That’s a good idea, Snape. I’ll post it below again, just in case someone 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.
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 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.
Yes, this is vintage lunacy from Tonto the head clown.
Did you learn that in school? Did you ever attend school? Do you really believe all that?
Anyway, what do you think would happen to your feathers and hammers filled moon’s moment of inertia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg
I know you don’t realize this, but this dog’s breakfast of a “proof” only proves that you are either mentally ill or on some very severe mind altering drugs.
Thanks for reminding me about that, Snape. I had forgotten about it, but it’s good to make sure everyone sees it.
For someone to try to refute it, they must refute both Galileo and the NASA Astronauts.
That’s ain’t going to happen.
ClintR
Just because objects fall at the same rate does in NO way indicate the force acting upon each. The heavier mass has greater force in a gravity field but it also has more mass so it falls at the same rate as feather which has less force on it in a gravity field but also less mass to accelerate.
Your level of physics knowledge keeps getting lower. You really are a stupid person. Also it seems you are proud of how stupid you are. What a strange person you are.
Here learn something. Don’t be so stupid, you don’t have to be as dumb as you seem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKbdgouPtU4
Norman, you just keep providing more and more evidence of your lack of knowledge of physics.
Once again, you found a link to something you can’t understand. Then you try to use it to support your nonsense. Your link, to the youtube video, is NOT about objects in free fall. The example is about an object restrained — “An object fixed on a pivot…”
You don’t have a clue. You’re just like SGW, Bindidon, Snape, Nate, and the rest.
You’re an idiot.
Yes Tyson. This guy is always good for a laugh. Here is some more comedy gold from him and his side kick.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528445
That’s truly a classic MikeR, but there are so many comments of the three-ring circus entertainers from which to choose.
Agree with Tyson, adept blog readers are still waiting “for ClintR to release his proof debunking tidal locking.”
I had forgotten all about MikeR, and what a blithering idiot he was. He could never get anything right, and now teaming up with Ball4, he can be wrong even faster!
Torque about stupidity. At the moment the lever arm is zero as the centre of stupidity coincides with the centre of mass of Clint’s cranium.
ClintR’s idea of debunking consists of barking slogans like a dog, and yelping declarations without any proof.
You would think that he might provide solved equations relating to physics to support his “debunk”. But noooooo! He can’t even solve a simple velocity formula, so we know that ain’t gonna happen.
But we already know Clint is anti-science because he stated:
You can’t use Kinematics for orbital motion, or you will get the wrong answers.
Of course! We have to use Clint’s personal brand of voodoo physics.
SkepticGoneWild,
I thought you were joking but I just checked and ClintR actually made that comment. He even repeated it several times, so it wasn’t a slip of the tongue or an accidental key press! Amazing stuff!
I think Clint and DREM, should exploit their comic talents as a comedy act duo called the “Whirling but not Rotating Dervishes”.
Clint could rapidly spin DREM in circles by his arm. DREM can loudly declare that he is not rotating on his axis as he simultaneously throws up*.
They could take it in turns to emit, as we say down under, “technicolour yawns”. I can see it playing well at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.
p.s. Gordon’s role could be technical adviser and understudy.
* see Merry-Go-Round dizziness at
https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/vertigo-dizziness
Oops! I forgot to address ClintR’s forgetfulness that he admitted to in his most recent comment. Maybe his forgetfulness is contagious.
Yes, I have to admit that I have not being paying attention to Clint’s recent contributions. I am more of a “one lunatic at a time” type of guy.
As DREM has now gone into full surrender mode, I am happy to remind Clint of my presence.
I thought you were joking but I just checked and ClintR actually made that comment.
Gordon made a similar statement:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
Idiot MikeR is out blithering again. But SGW actually quotes me correctly:
“You can’t use Kinematics for orbital motion, or you will get the wrong answers.”
And, he goes on to quote Gordon correctly.
“Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.”
Maybe if SGW memorizes those quotes it will help his understanding. Because currently, he has no clue. He even ignores the definition of Kinematics from Cornell U. Like Norman, he found something on the Web that he believed supported his nonsense, only to find out what he found proved him wrong: “It should be noted that kinematics is not concerned with why things move; that question is addressed in mechanics by the introduction of forces, which induce accelerations.”
in orbital motion, the orbiting body is constantly being vectored into a new direction. That’s why Kinematics can NOT be used for orbital motion.
ClintR,
I think you should start off with baby steps and read this,
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/10-2-kinematics-of-rotational-motion/
After you complete this, then you can progress to dynamics.
It is never good idea to throw someone into the deep end before they learn how to dog paddle.
Upthread, MikeR conceded that the movement of the ball on a string etc could be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.
MikeR found something on the web he believes supports his nonsense, not realizing his mis-interpretation of it makes him an idiot, again.
DREM,
Yes it can be described in a single rotation as I confirmed above. This is patently obvious.
However as explained ad nauseum, it can also be described by a translation* of the centre of mass plus a rotation around an axis through the centre of mass. These are equivalent. This is also patently obvious.
For those who still can’t grasp this, here is a graphical depiction of the latter process for a rotating triangle.
https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif
I hope the above is self explanatory, but DREM if you are still confused I can join the dots for you.
* curvilinear translation with a constant radius of curvature i,e, a circular orbit (in celestial terminology).
ClintR,
It sounds like you may have drowned when confronted with the material contained within –
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/10-2-kinematics-of-rotational-motion/
Clint , I am also not sure what exactly I am supposed to be misinterpreting in this article, as I haven’t made a single comment on its contents. Can you tell me specifically what I haven’t commented on or just provide me with a hint?
I have just realisedtbat by responding to both DREM and ClintR here, I have violated my “one idiot at a time” principle.
Accordingly I think DREM should butt out of this thread and return upstream to our unfinished business of negotiating the terms of his surrender.
MikeR is just getting started. He never has anything valid to offer. He just makes things up. In his empty head, he believes that makes him look smart.
I just let him carry on. He’s a blithering idiot.
DREMT: "Upthread, MikeR conceded that the movement of the ball on a string etc could be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass."
MikeR: "Yes it can be described in a single rotation as I confirmed above. This is patently obvious."
There you go then, people. It’s "patently obvious" that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. Debate over.
“. Its ‘patently obvious’ that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. Debate over.”
Except that YOU have already freely admitted, several times, that it’s motion can be EQUIVALENTLY described as a Translation on a circular path plus a rotation on its axis.
Did you forget that?
Are you retracting all those statements now?
Do you have any integrity?
"However as explained ad nauseum, it can also be described by a translation* of the centre of mass plus a rotation around an axis through the centre of mass. These are equivalent. This is also patently obvious."
No, MikeR, the notes from Brown were quite clear. This is "general plane motion", and is a description that only applies to a movement that is not a pure translation or a pure rotation. The ball on a string is a classic example of pure rotation.
So, breaking it down into a translation and a rotation does not apply.
Tesla already admitted that the science of his day indicated the ball on a string rotated on its own axis. The science of today even more so indicates the ball on a string rotates on its own axis.
Non-spinners do not accept kinematics in solving “orbital motion”.
There. We are all done. You clowns can have Tesla and throw out kinematics, we’ll stick to the settled science.
DREMT: "Upthread, MikeR conceded that the movement of the ball on a string etc could be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass."
MikeR: "Yes it can be described in a single rotation as I confirmed above. This is patently obvious."
SGW: [puts fingers in his ears and hums loudly]
We need a name for our resident anti-science anti-spinner crowd.
How about:
The Gyrating Twirllito Brothers
The humming continues…
SGW, have you found any more definitions of Kinematics you will have to ignore, like the one you found from Cornell U?
That was funny — Find a definition, then learn what it is about, then ignore it.
“You can’t use Kinematics for orbital motion, or you will get the wrong answers. – Clint
Yet Clint is still barking about kinematics. (which he does not understand anyway)
You need to accept what Tesla stated. Tesla agreed that the current science of his day accepted the fact that the ball does rotate on its own axis.
We are in the same situation. Current kinematics accepts that the ball on a string rotates on its own axis. I provided a example of a proof from a university lecturer. I also provided a sample calculation using standard equations for kinematic motion and came up with the same answer
So move along. We all agree that Tesla has his opinion. And we agree that current science is at odds with Tesla.
“And we agree that current science is at odds with Tesla.”
No SGW. Only at odds with Tesla’s editor’s imprecise wording and/or translation. Tesla’s wheel assembly example proves the moon & ball on string rotate each on their own axis (axis C in Fig. 4) while orbiting in agreement with that Tesla Fig. 4.
We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/readings/MIT8_01F16_chapter20.pdf
Why are you clowns arguing about kinematics? You clearly state kinematics gives one the wrong answer.
And you pervert kinematic conventions anyway.
Ball4,
Tesla is confusing. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
SGW, why can’t you just accept that the movement of a ball on a string is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball? There are at least four of your fellow Spinners that agree it can be described that way.
Oh good, SGW has gone back to finding links he can’t understand.
This time however, he couldn’t understand the title:
Translation and Rotational Motion Kinematics for Fixed Axis Rotation
That is Tesla’s editor writing not necessarily Tesla. Tesla’s native language is Serbo-Croatian. Tesla’s formulas & Fig. 4 are accurate with Tesla’s wheel assembly example proving the moon rotates on its axis once per rev. in detail.
Since Ball4 keeps misrepresenting Tesla, here’s the relevant article.
https://www.energyscienceforum.com/files/tesla/nikolatesla-themoonsrotation-june1919.pdf
Tesla was fluent in eight languages, including English. He did not need a translator. There is nothing wrong with Tesla’s “prose” and there is absolutely no doubt that he argued the moon did not rotate on its own axis. He included Fig. 4 and his discussion of the balls on the spokes because he was trying to explain how the parallel axis theorem leads people to erroneously conclude that objects moving like the moon are rotating on their own axes. He went on to explain why this is wrong.
“..Tesla’s “prose” and there is absolutely no doubt that he argued the moon did not rotate on its own axis.”
No, that is the journal Editor’s no doubt writing, position & argument DREMT, readers can see under the title. You have been pwned. Tesla’s wheel assembly analysis proves the moon & ball on string rotate on their own axes through Fig. 4, point C. Tesla’s no doubt writing, position & argument is actually shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5:
“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.”
This is from Tesla’s first article:
"…the moon does not, and cannot revolve on its axis."
"The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable."
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
His first two papers:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
As I wrote, Tesla obviously pwned DREMT.
Tesla argued that the moon did not rotate on its own axis.
Tesla confirmed the scientific consensus of his day was that the ball on a string rotated on its own axis.
That has not changed. I don’t why the non-spinners don’t agree with Tesla.
At least 4 of the Spinners have argued that the movement of the ball on a string can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. I don’t know why SGW doesn’t agree with them.
DREM’s argument by selective quotation suggests desperation.
Here is my full quote
“Yes it can be described in a single rotation as I confirmed above. This is patently obvious.”
This is the bit he “forgot” to include.
“However as explained ad nauseum, it can also be described by a translation* of the centre of mass plus a rotation around an axis through the centre of mass. These are equivalent. This is also patently obvious.”
So, yes once more (this time with feeling),
A single rotation can be performed by a single rotation.
Hard to argue with that.
DREM you can quote me on that one.
Pay attention, MikeR:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-574244
I think I have identified exactly where DREM ‘s ( and briefly my) semantic confusion arises. The chapter in the Brown reference is titled “Dynamics of Rigid Bodies”, see
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
The rotation referred to in the introduction of 5.1.2, is for a rigid body about an internal axis and hence the constituent parts rotate with different velocities dependent on how far from the centre of rotation.
The situation is different for rotational motion of a rigid body around an external axis, as this can be explicitly treated as general plane motion see figures 5.1.4 and 5.1.5..
To quote the Brown article directly –
” Here they are can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation. ” Thus we have the property that the motion of a rigid body can be decomposed into a translation of an arbitrary point within the body, followed by a rigid rotation of the body about this point. Further, the motion of an arbitrary point within the body is determined completely once the translational quantities and rotational quantities are known…”
The translation is not specified. It does not have to be linear or rectilinear and could be curvilinear ( rotational motion is a special case of curvilinear motion where the radius of curvature is fixed).
So DREM it is important to actually read a reference that you link to and it is even more important to understand it.
* my previous comments were based on a quick skim read.
“The rotation referred to in the introduction of 5.1.2, is for a rigid body about an internal axis”
No, it is for all types of rotation about a fixed axis, including rotation about an external axis. That is what “rotation about a fixed axis” means. See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
“He went on to explain why this is wrong.”
Yes he said its rotation on its axis is an illusion, and that all would be explained.
But then, he never did. He just ASSERTED it is an illusion. Like you guys do.
Nate, it’s impossible to deprogram a cultist. Beliefs can not be changed until the person is willing to change. Right now, you are convinced you are smart because you follow the cult. You believe that not following the cult is scary. You don’t have the maturity to be on your own. You believe in going with the majority, the “establishment”, the “elites”.
You cherish being a sheep, because of the false security it provides.
“Debate over.
Clearly it is. You admit that the spinner combo model of a ball on string is equivalent.
You admit that the Moon has an elliptical orbit, and Libration, thus ONLY the combo model is applicable.
So whats left to debate?
Debate over.
So MikeR, like a few of his fellow Spinners, has finally acknowledged that the movement of a ball on a string can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Huge progress. So what is next?
Well, it’s a question of “what is orbital motion without axial rotation?”
The Spinners would argue it is simply a translation. Not a general plane motion, but a pure translation of the object, in an ellipse. The problem with that is, what then connects this motion to the object that is being orbited?
If you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a pure rotation about an external axis, instead, then the axis is your connection to the object or barycenter being orbited. Makes more sense. Ties in with the definition of revolution/orbital motion being a rotation about an external axis. Explains why “revolution” is synonymous with the word “rotation”.
And DREMT now admits the ball on string changes orientation (Gordon writes it turns) on its own axis C once per orbit of O. One big happy blog now.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Just quoting DREMT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-574669
Whenever Tesla’s editor writes something like moon doesn’t rotate on axis thru C, just insert DREMT’s “the change in orientation of the moon” as shown/proven in Tesla’e wheel assembly.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
For a rigid body, it undergoes rotation if any line scribed on it (such as AB above) changes its orientation
https://web.calpoly.edu/~fowen/DAUST-KinDynMach/9RigidBodyKinematicsVelocity.pdf
Debate over.
Yes, SGW, the ball on a string is changing its orientation, because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
DREMT: "Upthread, MikeR conceded that the movement of the ball on a string etc could be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass."
MikeR: "Yes it can be described in a single rotation as I confirmed above. This is patently obvious."
The instantaneous net movement of a body via rigid motion is called a rigid displacement, which may result from translation (linear displacement, i.e. a change in position), rotation
(angular displacement, i.e. a change in orientation), or both at the same time
https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf
Debate over.
Also, from your link:
"A body can also undergo translation + rotation — that is, a combination of both types of motion, occurring simultaneously, and with no fixed axis of rotation. Rather the point about which the object rotates changes. This is called general plane motion."
Confirming, once again, that general plane motion does not apply to the ball on a string, which has a fixed axis of rotation external to the ball.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/01/snoring.gif
The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. It has one axis of rotation.
The orientation of the body is changing as it is rotated about some axis emanating from the center of mass
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs248/pdf/class_09_rigid_bodies.pdf
Thanks for confirming the moon rotates about its axis at the center of mass.
Bummer.
Debate over.
SGW, the orientation of the ball on a string is changing because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Its movement consists of one single motion, a rotation about a fixed axis that is external to the ball. Some of your fellow Spinners have finally accepted that this is a valid way of describing its motion. It has all been backed up by various kinematic sources, and through ftop_t’s proof.
Time for you to just accept it.
DREMT sputters incoherently.
“If you describe ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ as a pure rotation about an external axis”
No. As this debate has clearly shown, that fails to describe elliptical orbits. Why would we use a model that fails to work?
And sure enough we don’t. And no one does. Debate over.
“then the axis is your connection to the object or barycenter being orbited. Makes more sense.”
Not really, only in the minds of the n0n-spinner cult.
Newton explained very clearly what ties the two masses together.
There is nothing incoherent about it, SGW. That is just you putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly again.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/b012f0991145b6f72536dae8859fa4e2/tenor.gif?itemid=9515525
DREM’s extract above-“Theaxis of rotation need not go through the body.
Yes DREM I think we are all aware of that. The rotation can be around either an internal axis, as in a stationaty spinning moon , or around an external axis, such as for an orbiting non spinning moon.
Do you understand the difference? Clearly not. Read 5.1.2 of Brown and study figures 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 , until you do.
Come back then (it could take a while) and we can continue the discussion . We can then move the discussion forward onto a non stationary spinning moon, followed by a circularly orbiting spinning moon and finally onto an elliptically orbiting spinning moon.
On the latter, have you located your intellectual tour de force regarding the Moon’s libration? Are the rumours that it has been buried in a crypt inside the great pyramid of Giza true?
OK, MikeR.
Ok , DREM, I assume this could take a long time as there are some equations involved.
Maybe you need to get Ftop to give you a hand, if he ever reappears. Clint could also help but unfortunately he doesn’t understand vectors.
p.s. I can feel a white flag PST coming on.
#2
OK, MikeR.
Yet another abject failure for DREM that is terminated by a whimper.
More whimpers from DREM to follow. Stay tuned.
#3
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
Nah, DREM, you’re way too slow with you’re pathetic attempt at false bravado. Unfortunately the game had already been called when you first started whimpering.
At least it was called before you bled out.
https://images.app.goo.gl/3CwZ5i27EXHaom4P9
#4
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DREK,
Repeating yourself like a demented moron is not a good look or a convincing rhetorical device, but if this is the best you can do….
Maybe you should try and convince everyone of the merits of your arguments with a switch to a PST?
#5
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DREK,
Just repeating the same old “sorry for your loss” sounds like you’re consoling someone for the loss of a loved one rather than boasting of victory. Not good enough. Lift you your game.
Perhaps try a rant. Here are some examples. In the first you could emulate either protagonist.
https://youtu.be/z3m5BBAqoY4
In the second you could address some of your anger management issues.
https://youtu.be/QvwYZYvw1TA
#6
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DREK,
If you are unable to control your impulse to repeat yourself,
you definitely need to up your Ritalin.
p.s. keep’m coming. I have an almost inexhaustible supply of material to get through.
#7
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DREK, or is it DRECK? What is your preferred spelling?
Assuming I get no appropriate response, I will switch to DRECK.
#8
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DRECK, to save a lot of time we can cut out the middle man. He are my replies to your next two SFYL’s.
#9. DRECK, Please stop whimpering. You might short out your keyboard.
#10. We all knew it would all end in tears for DRECK but didn’t know that it would always also turn to shit .
DRECK-head , when you arrive at #11, in the interests of time, you can access my responses by using modulus 10 arithmetic i.e.
#11,#21, #31… will correspond to my reply to #1.
#12, #22, #32… will correspond to my reply to #2,
and so on.
#9
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DRECK,
Have you worked out modulo 10 arithmetic yet?
Please look it up so you can extract the responses yourself.
By the way, before I leave you to your own devices, I must thank you for your repetitive reminder “sorry for your loss”.
I have found my car keys at last. Thank-you again for your concern. It was very touching.
#10
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
What loss?
Have I lost something else?
#11
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
DREM, on the matter of loss, yes we are at a loss to explain your narcissistic desire to provoke, via your troll like behaviour. Repetition via PSTs and SFYLs and other associated nonsense are just symptomatic of this.
On the matter of sorrow, most of us are sorry about your continued disruptive presence here. I am somewhat ambivalent as you manage to weak havoc for your associates across the ideological divide. I am particularly sorry for Skeptic, Eben and the others for having to put with your nonsense, but at least there is one thing we can agree with, and that is our opinion with regard to you, and your associates, who hop on and off the clown car.
On a final note, DREM, I have something relevant with regard to the manner you like to claim victory, see the following –
https://postimg.cc/87dnGrv6
Accordingly, carry on SFYLing without me.
DREM have a wonderful Xmas and a Happy New Year. By the way, a resolution to stop acting like a dick in 2021, is likely to make you feel less persecuted.
#12
OK, MikeR. Sorry for your loss.
For my very last comment in this thread I must again include the total loser who “Gets last comment wins debate” gif.
https://postimg.cc/87dnGrv6
Go for it DREM. Prove your a total loser.
I’m not sure why Tonto the clown would want to “debunk” tidal locking; unless non-spinner lunacy posits that there is a physical string tying the Moon and Earth together? No matter, it’s fun watching their clown car careen from one self-debunk to another. Besides I get a lot of entertaining anecdotes to recount at the Christmas dinner table. But I digress.
https://ibb.co/GnvCvXs
Given the fact that the reason for the Moon’s present synchronous spin-orbit state with Earth, is primarily due to mass concentrations caused by impact basins which were later filled by lava flows from the molten core, thus creating the Basaltic maria.
These mass concentrations cause gravity anomalies which combined with the slight flattening in the polar diameter result in torques applied by the Earth’s gravitational field.
Your experiment proposes to further concentrate the Moon’s mass by filling it 50-50 with 7.87 gm/cc iron and 0.0025 gm/cc feathers. Your goal here is to show that “gravity cannot create a torque on a moon.” Not only would such contraption spin about a principal axis, it would spin about an axis different than the present day axis. You have just turned the Moon on it’s side (Uranus).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Solar_system_bodies_rotation_animation.svg
Entertaining if nothing else.
Snape, just like the other idiots, you believe if you bang on your keyboard long enough you can change reality. That’s why you can’t learn.
Gravity can NOT produce a torque on an orbiting body.
Are you hard of learning or just plain retarded?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-574082
ClintR aka Tonto the clown, thanks for this priceless nugget:
“Gravity can NOT produce a torque on an orbiting body.”
My interns haven’t stopped ROFL.
I don’t really know about all of MikeR’s afflictions. All I know for sure is that he believes he can substitute his typing ability for a knowledge of physics. That’s common among blithering idiots.
I would guess that your “interns” are about as imaginary as everything else about you.
Something I just noticed…the SoPol stratosphere dropped to -9.31 on this update. The only comparable event was -8.02 in October 2015 update.
bdgwx
Thx, interesting, though SoPol is a strange corner, especially in LS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I217oo_VCRyMbDn_0PxotIfmomHbi-t7/view
It’s so unusual that the layout now has to be corrected when copy/pasting the data into a spreadsheet calc.
And… did you notice the ‘land’ value beneath?
J.-P. D.
bdgwx,
As was noted during the massive sudden stratospheric warming event in September 2019, there seems to be a smaller corresponding event of opposite sign occurring in the Tropics again this year
It appears that during the southern spring these stratosphere temperatures are inversely correlated.
https://i.postimg.cc/JhBS9n14/LS-South-Pole-versus-Tropics.jpg
Note also we have had the most extreme events in either direction for the South Pole over the last two years. Could these events become even more significant in the future?
It is always interesting to see how science is related to the history of science, and especially how the latter inevitably influences our view on the former.
The newest example for me is Eric Gray Forbes.
Forbes was a historian, specialized in astronomy, and seemed to have some major interest in writing about German astronomers, among them Tobias Mayer (1723 – 1762).
Maybe this is due to the fact that Forbes’ wife, Maria Lürken, was a German.
*
Forbes wrote at least three articles about Mayer:
– (1) The life and work of Tobias Mayer
https://tinyurl.com/ybbtvqqz
– (2) Tobias Mayer’s Contributions to Observational Astronomy
https://tinyurl.com/yccnuabm
– (3) The unpublished writings of Tobias Mayer (seems behind paywall everywhere).
*
The points which raised my interest were that in both (1) and (2), Forbes explicitly
– immeasurably highlighted an intelligent, but obvious step within Mayer’s evaluation of the data he obtained during the observation of Moon spots, mentioning 27 allegedly ‘conditional equations’;
and, above all
– named Mayer’s work ‘A theory of lunar libration‘, although the original title is ‘Treatise on Moon’s rotation on its axis‘ (Mayer didn’t spend even one line about libration in his work, excepted a little hint on the fact that Cassini explained Moon’s libration with its spin – but didn’t explain how he, Cassini, did the job):
https://tinyurl.com/yd7vcvag
*
It was no problem for me to discover, in the 13th section of Mayer’s wonderful treatise, the place where instead of simply averaging the single solutions of 27 equations with 3 variables each, he cleverly classified them in three subsets, and computed their average.
Look in
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
at pages 152-154.
Mayer not only was an outstanding astronomer, with a heavy trigonometry and algebra background; he was a tough engineer as well!
*
This might be a detail, but isn’t one.
Because such incorrect representations of science irremediably lead to its intentional misrepresentation by interested persons, like e.g. in a comment above, written by this blog’s usual suspect:
” Mayer used a statistical form of highly theoretical analysis but he had no idea what he was doing. Otherwise, he would have noted that the Moon is not rotating on its axis. ”
*
The same suspect had no problem to write, in a previous thread of this blog:
” I just read through a book on Mayer and once again you have confused rotation with libration. Mayer was not concerned with the Moon rotating locally, he was concerned with creating tables that would reveal the position of the Moon in the sky. ”
*
Conclusio: Robertson & some others can be blamed for having written many deliberate misinterpretations on this blog, but not for those resulting from the reading of incorrect or missing information.
*
Yeah. Now I can resume looking here further at the eternal, nonsensical Scharmützel between Spinners and Non-Spinners, about coins, merry-go-rounds, curvilinear translations, and… Tesla’s incredibly superficial quick shot.
I have a question:
” Does the ball on a string rotate about its axis? ”
Good grief, people!
J.-P. D.
JD, you type long, say nothing.
ClintR
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-573794
Emptiness is all around, as we can see…
Yes, you have nothing to offer, JD.
And what’s interesting is I believe you know what a phony you are.
Yes, Tobias Mayer confirmed Cassini’s laws through observations and does deserve the title of “the father of positional selenography.”
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants. This statement is now often used to symbolize scientific progress.”
To be clear, that statement has been attributed to Isaac Newton.
Newton and Galileo got it right. Cassini definitely had it wrong. If Mayer actually believed he “confirmed Cassini’s “laws”, then he was wrong too.
There you go again debunking yourself and the rest of your house of cards.
Yes, Newton did get it right:
“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.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-551255
That was too easy!
No points, Snape. You copied Bindidon. He was taking things out of context.
I know you are in a stiff competition for “Idiot of the Year”, but copying won’t get you many points.
You need to be an original idiot, like SGW. He has claimed numerous times the a ball on a string is rotating about its axis. That’s why he’s up there with the other front runners.
So now you are admitting to not reading Newton’s Principia, because its meaning is unambiguous. I’ll include a link to the text so as to fully expose your fraudulent attempt to divert and deflect.
https://ibb.co/1stJjgt
You say “No points” but I actually get two points. One for getting you to agree that “Newton got it right,” and another for proving that you are just another BS artist.
As I said before, this is just too easy!
Wrong Snape, I never admitted any such thing. But, falsely accusing me does earn you “idiot points”.
Newton’s work was indeed unambiguous, but NOT to idiots.
“…with respect to the fixed stars…”
That’s why you can’t take things out-of-context.
Yes you idiot. Does the Earth rotate with respect to the fixed stars? YES!
Anyway, my interns thank you for all the laughs youve provided them with, but they also inform me that it is beneath me to spend too much time corresponding with on matters that require above 5th grade education and/or common sense. So, I bid you adieu and keep up the good work.
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
Every time the idiots get caught, they claim they are leaving.
But, they never do….
Dremt…”Once again, I love the blatantly dishonest and coordinated attempt to rubbish Teslas article by quoting snippets out of context”.
That’s Ball4’s MO, when he is cornered he resorts to cherry-picked quotes to back his losing argument. I have written him off as either a meddling troll or someone who is seriously stupid and childish. I reply to him only for the benefit of readers of this blog who do not participate to give them the other side of his nonsense.
The purpose of Tesla’s paper was to prove the Moon does not rotate on a local axis and anyone who would cherry pick his statements to make it seems that he supported the opposite is a plain idiot.
All in all, the alarmists on this site rely on obfuscation and misinterpretations of basic laws like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Their pseudo-science relies on it and the authorities to whom they appeal, like NOAA and NASA GISS, use similar obfuscation and incorrect science.
Just a quick reminder that you announced on this blog that were in the process of inducing NASA to change the information on the Moon’s rotation to conform to your delusional non-spinner misinterpretations of basic laws such as that
A rigid body free in space without any constraints can rotate permanently about a principal axis of inertia.
“As of this morning NASA misconceptions about the Moon website says the following:
Q: Does the Moon rotate?
A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month. If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.”
Don’t expect this modern-era NASA to move quickly to correct their nonsense. Especially the Moon nonsense they inherited from astrology.
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
Tesla’s wheel assembly analysis proves NASA is correct in NASA statement, ClintR and Gordon are the nonsense filled commenters lacking proof of their comments.
ClintR aka Tonto the clown has already conceded:
ClintR 10:19 AM
Newton and Galileo got it right.
Referring to Newton’s assertion in Proposition XXII. Theorem XV of the Principia:
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.
Proposition XVII rather.
Won’t work, Snape.
Taking stuff of out of context won’t work. It just indicates you, like Bindidon, have never studied Newton.
Read’em and weep.
https://ibb.co/1stJjgt
womp womp womp!
https://tinyurl.com/Okay-HuffingMan
“…with respect to the fixed stars…”
That’s why you can’t take things out-of-context.
Yes you idiot. Does the Earth rotate with respect to the fixed stars?… YES!
For some reason, Tyson wants to have the same discussion in two different places, at the same time.
Anyway, my interns thank you for all the laughs you’ve provided them with, but they also inform me that it is beneath me to spend too much time corresponding with on matters that require above 5th grade education and/or common sense. So, I bid you adieu and keep up the good work.
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie!
https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
Yes DREMT, it’s as if they don’t know what they’re doing!
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Oh wonder! I read here:
ClintR says:
December 18, 2020 at 1:09 PM
“… with respect to the fixed stars…”
That’s why you can’t take things out-of-context.
*
I remember that last year, a commenter nicknamed ‘JD*Huffman’ wrote the same kind of nonsense.
Some people still seem to think that ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ means to have a different look at things compared with e.g. ‘with respect to Earth’.
And that an orbiting body, observed ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, could rotate about its axis while it wouldn’t when viewed from the orbiting Earth!
More dumb you die.
*
Commenter Bart did, on December 2 upthread, his very best to help such people thinking even deeper in that wrong direction:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-562285
He couldn’t have done it worse.
*
Why do they all think so, though Newton himself explicitly mentioned how different Sun’s spin is
– when the same Sun spot is viewed from Earth orbiting around Sun
or
– when the Sun spot is viewed at the moment where the same fixed star is visible again at the same place.
*
Here is what Newton wrote in his Principia Mathematica, Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV (it’s the place just before what you highlighted above):
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.
*
It is evident that, when you measure e.g. body “1” in motion with respect to body “2” being itself in motion, you will obtain a different result than if you look at body “1” with respect to something fixed.
But that does not change the intrinsic orbiting or rotating speed of body “1”, be “1” the Sun, Earth, or… the Moon.
J.-P. D.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
1. Btw, it would be interesting to look at Newton’s foot notes adjacent to Prop XVII Th XV in his original Latin source:
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
The interesting stuff starts at footnote (e) beginning with
” 76. Semper respiciet quamprorimè ”
Unfortunately, Andrew Motte did not integrate such foot notes in his English translation, nor did the genial French woman Gabrielle-Emilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, marquise Du Châtelet-Lomont in her incredibly good translation of Newton’s work:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/556172?name=Principes%20math%C3%A9matiques%20de%20la%20philosophie%20naturelle
And Google’s translator seems to fail in correctly handling Latin texts. I tried 2 years ago, but nothing valuable came out at that time.
*
2. Maybe you are interested in looking at what Mercator (aka Nicolas Kaufmann) wrote about his communication with Newton concerning Moon’s spin:
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA285&hl=en&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false
Caution: the full text option mixes ‘f’ and ‘s’ because they look nearly identical in the original Latin source.
J.-P. D.
JD, you’ve got yourself very confused, again.
Earth, Moon, and Sun all exist. You got that much correct.
Earth and Sun rotate on their axes. Earth orbits Sun.
Moon does not rotate on its axis, but orbits Earth.
Merci, JD*Huffman, pour votre excellente explication que j’ai parfaitement comprise.
Hope it helped, JD.
Gordon accuses spinners of using pseudoscience when he is a prime user of it.
An example:
That does take place in a rigid body with the particles but they are constrained to complete the same distance in the same time because they are stuck together. – Gordon
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time. – Gordon
Gordon confuses the properties of a rigid body with the motion of a rigid body.
Definition of a rigid body:
Formally it is defined as a collection of particles with the property that the distance between particles remains unchanged during the course of motions of the body.
Gordon dumbly concludes the velocity of any point on a rigid body is identical.
Take for instance the rigid body of a propeller on a plane. So according to Gordon, a point on the outside tip of the propeller moves at the same velocity as a point close to the propeller shaft. Brilliant.
And then there is his total misunderstanding of the concept of curvilinear translation.
SGW, several of us have been trying to teach about the motions involved. You cannot learn.
Every point on Moon is traveling with the same velocity as Moon’s center of mass. You keep trying to use Kinematics, which always makes you wrong when you try to apply it to orbital motion. Moon is “translating”, with no axial rotation. It’s the same motion as a ball on a string.
Even your own source from MIT mentions it in Appendix 20A: “… which means that the body is undergoing pure translation.”
Now you get to run from the MIT link!
Poor chief spokesman for the Gyrating Twirllito Brothers apparently had not read Tesla carefully.
Refer to his Figure 5. When the balls are not locked down and free to rotate, he describes them as follows:
The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity
But this is when the shaded area does NOT point towards the center of orbit at all times. So that is not like the moon’s motion.
Tesla never says anywhere in his papers that the velocity of every point of the moon is the same. He was smarter than that. Only dumb people like you believe that.
Nice attempt to run away from your MIT source, SGW.
That’s what I was expecting.
Even your own source from MIT mentions it in Appendix 20: “… which means that the body is undergoing pure translation.”
LMAO. What a moron.
Your above quote was located in the following section:
20A.1. Translation of the Center of Mass
which was the first part of the motion. The second part was a rotation:
20A.2 Rotation about the Center of Mass
In Section 20A.1 it says this:
Thus by Eq. (20.A.12), the displacement of each object is equal to the displacement of the center of mass
What object are they referring too? They are referring to the two points on either side of the COM shown in Figure 20A.2. All three objects have equal displacement, which indicates pure translation. But that was only the translation portion. You missed Section 20A.2 for the rotation portion, dummy.
It must get tiring for you being wrong all the time.
Don’t forget what Tesla said about Figure 5 when the balls were free to rotate, and the shaded portion faced the same direction (unlike the moon) He said THAT motion was translation, and that was when the shaded areas were NOT always pointing towards the center of orbit.
And nowhere does Tesla say all points on the moon have the same velocity.
Yes SGW, the quote about “translation” was found in the section about “translation”.
No, the quote about “translation” was not found in the section about “rotation”.
Nice smokescreen, as you run away from your MIT source.`
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/01/snoring.gif
skeptic…” So according to Gordon, a point on the outside tip of the propeller moves at the same velocity as a point close to the propeller shaft”.
***
Did not claim anything of the kind, I merely pointed out that a rigid body’s rotational velocity is defined using angular velocity, not the tangential velocities of the individual parts. A propeller’s velocity is rated in RPM, which is a measure of angular velocity, not the summation of individual particle velocities in the prop.
With the Moon, that means all lunar points on a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon’s COM will turn at the angular velocity of the radial line.
That’s how we measure the Moon’s orbital velocity, we calculate how long it takes that radial line through the Moon’s COM to complete one orbit. No one gives a hoot about the tangential velocities of the different parts because there individual masses and distance from the COM have been averaged to the COM.
If you take the individual particle velocities and average them, you will end up with the velocity of the COM, which is the angular velocity. You can’t confuse the linear velocity of the lunar COM with the resultant angular velocity imposed on that linear velocity by gravity.
Besides, when you work out the centre of mass of a rigid body you are actually averaging the mass of each particle and its distance from a reference point. With a symmetric rigid body, like a sphere the COM is at the geometric centre of the body. You should know that from the balance point of a rigid linear body of uniform mass. It balances at its length/2.
You have so much to learn, but, hey, keep at it. Clint, Dremt, Swenson, and myself will be glad to guide you.
Gordon,
Quite making conflicting statements, then.
You stated:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That is false, because a particle on the far side of the moon covers a LONGER distance in the same amount of time than the near side.
I am trying to clarify your position because your buddy Clint says:
Every point on Moon is traveling with the same velocity as Moons center of mass.
And he is NOT referring to angular velocity. Do you agree?
SGW, you are wanting to get lost in the picayune nitpicks of semantics because your cult nonsense is bogus.
The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around it.
You keep looking for excuses to avoid reality.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/01/snoring.gif
skeptic…”Gordon made a similar statement:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time”.
Your point??? Every particle on the Moon completes an orbit in the same time. Unless you have proof that is not true, from a parallel universe, let’s see your proof.
Now Gordon is trying to save face. This is what Gordon said:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That means all particles have the same velocity, since they cover the same distance (a linear unit) in the same time.
Now Gordon is changing his tune by saying:
Every particle on the Moon completes an orbit in the same time.
That’s saying all particles on the moon have the same angular velocity, which is true.
Just to confirm Gordon’s position, this is what he said up-thread:
I have already acknowledged that particles at different distances from an axis move at different velocities. However, your diagram does not represent a rigid body, it represents two particles orbiting an axis at different distances from the axis.
That does take place in a rigid body with the particles but they are constrained to complete the same distance in the same time because they are stuck together.
When he says, that does not take place, what is he referring to? Particles moving a different velocities. So Gordon’s position is that all particles on a rigid body move at the same velocity, which is BOGUS.
Look at the rigid body of the propeller on a plane. A particle on the outside edge moves faster than a particle on the prop closer to the propeller shaft.
Gordon has it right, all points of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity. That’s orbital motion, without axial rotation.
It’s the same as a ball on a string.
Make up your mind, Gordon. Your statement:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That is false. A particle on the far side of the moon covers a LONGER distance in the same time as a particle on the near side.
We agree concerning angular velocities.
skeptic…”Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That means all particles have the same velocity, since they cover the same distance (a linear unit) in the same time”.
***
That is correct. You are confusing particle linear velocity with the angular velocity of the whole. All particles in the Moon must complete an orbit in the same time. That results in the outer particles moving faster than the inner particles.
That fact has nothing to do with the velocity of the Moon in its orbit. We are only concerned with how long it takes the COM to complete an orbit and that is based on the angular velocity of a radial line connecting the lunar COM with the Earth’s centre. The fact that certain particles are moving faster has absolutely no bearing on that.
I don’t know why you go on and on about this trivia. You have not explained why your claims are relevant. You claim to have carried out kinematic calculations to prove the Moon is rotating on it axis. I have not looked at them because they are obviously nonsense. Any such calculation requires an angular velocity of the Moon’s mass around a local axis and there is no such angular velocity.
Any study of the lunar orbit is derived from the gravitational acceleration directed toward the Earth and the tangential velocity of the Moon perpendicular to the acceleration vector. There is no other vector indicating a rotation about the Moon’s axis.
Make up your mind, Gordon. You stated:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That is false. A particle on the far side of the moon covers a LONGER distance in the same time as a particle on the near side.
We agree concerning angular velocities.
I dont know why you go on and on about this trivia. You have not explained why your claims are relevant.
If the far side of the moon has a different velocity than the near side, that means the moon does not exhibit curvilinear translation, because with curvilinear translation, the velocity of all points of the rigid body are the same.
SGW, you’re still trying to treat orbital motion with Kinematics. You can’t learn. Kinematics doesn’t work with orbital motion, as your Cornell U. source explained.
In orbital motion, the body is being constantly re-directed by the vectors acting on it. One side of Moon is NOT going faster than the other side of Moon.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/01/snoring.gif
Yeah, Gordon contradicted himself.
Gordon: “Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.”
and
Gordon: “All particles in the Moon must complete an orbit in the same time. That results in the outer particles moving faster than the inner particles.”
Unless he’s incredibly dense, he should relaize that particles traveling faster than other particles over the same time cover more distance.
Unless you’re incredibly dense barry, you should realize that if you walk around a tree 5 times, you do not break your rib cage.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/01/snoring.gif
OK, SGW. Bye then.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3orif1fqDzAYm277Ik/giphy.gif
Got it, you are bored. Off you pop, then.
https://www.chron.com/news/article/Maverick-astrophysicist-calls-for-unusually-15816207.php
Upthread DREMT patiently tries to explain orbital motion, again. But troll Nate can’t stand reality so he blurts out “No. As this debate has clearly shown, that fails to describe elliptical orbits.”
Nate refuses to understand the simple analogy of a ball on a string proves Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. Nate tries to use Moon’s slightly elliptical orbit to deny orbital motion. What Nate doesn’t realize is that things don’t rotate about their axis “elliptically”. So by attempting to use an elliptical orbit to deny orbital motion, he inadvertently debunks Moon rotation.
Their constant failures are what make this so much fun. They know they’ve failed, hence their frustration turning to animosity, babbling, and a final desperate resort to linking to childish gifs.
Upthread DREMT explains the moon changes orientation as it orbits Earth and Gordon explains the moon turns as it orbits Earth; ClintR is now the lone hold out (wrongly) that the moon doesn’t do so.
“Changes orientation” does not equal “rotates on its own axis”.
DREMT self debunks once again, as is his habit. Yes, many blog commenters (except ClintR) agree with you DREMT, the moon changes its orientation once per orbit of Earth.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4’s continuing juvenile tactics to misrepresent others only verifies he has NOTHING.
No misrepresentation ClintR since quoted from upthread Gordon writes: “That turning process occurs…”
Upthread quote from DREMT writing: “the moon changes its orientation whilst it orbits”
ClintR, go argue your lone, confused losing side with Gordon and DREMT, both on the winning side of the change in moon orientation & turning process debate.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The orientation of the body is changing as it is rotated about some axis emanating from the center of mass
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs248/pdf/class_09_rigid_bodies.pdf
The instantaneous net movement of a body via rigid motion is called a rigid displacement, which may result from translation (linear displacement, i.e. a change in position), rotation
(angular displacement, i.e. a change in orientation), or both at the same time.
https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf
Bummer.
SGW, the orientation of the body will also change if it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. As you are presumably aware, but never acknowledge.
SGW has found a new link that he doesn’t understand. The diagram under the heading…
Combining Position and Orientation
…clearly indicates the object is rotating relative to the origin of the coordinate system. That is, a viewer at the origin would see the object rotating. We don’t see Moon rotating, because it is NOT rotating.
Then, SGW links to his Cornell U. definition of Kinematics that proves he has been wrong for months. SGW continues to link to it because he can’t learn.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/01/snoring.gif
.
DREKlint,
you both are very slow aren’t you? The debate about orientation has been over for a long time.
Just as long as the debate,about the applicability of a single rigid body hypothesis ( analogy whatever… ) such as a merry-go-round or a ball on a string * to the independently rotating Earth and Moon,is over**.
What the makes the persistence of both of your attempts to keep the farce going, is your refusal to learn any lessons. In particular, the Moon’s elliptical orbit is insurmountable for the rigid thinking advocates.
So it seems the lessons needs to continually reinforced .
Here is lesson 1 about elliptical orbits.
https://i.postimg.cc/bvvpcfmF/Lesson-Elliptical-Orbits.gif
Here is lesson 2 about the Moon’s elliptical orbit.
https://i.postimg.cc/c13ZNmcZ/Lesson-Moon-Orbit.gif
I hope you can carefully study these and work why a non rotating moon is totally incompatible with the Moon’s real orbit.
Also DREK , if you are still are just as confused ever, then you could just start with libration.
Maybe you can finally locate your mysteriously missing explanation for libration and see how it performs in practice.
What exact value for the longitudinal libration does the non-rotating moon model predict? 😊
* it could be a string or a spoke, the argument is the same.
** over, bar the whimpering.
p.s. Maybe Clint can help you locate your missing explanation or generate his own kinematic free libration model.
miker…”So it seems the lessons needs to continually reinforced . ”
Who was the amateur who created those gifs? Pure rot. No wonder you cannot understand how the Moon can translate in its orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. Clearly, if the Moon rotated on its axis once per orbit, the side facing the Earth would be facing space within 180 degrees of orbit.
“The debate about orientation has been over for a long time.”
I agree. So I don’t know why people keep bringing it up.
It has been over ever since you finally acknowledged that the movement of a ball on a string, etc, can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. In which case, you would have to agree with me that an object changing its orientation does not mean the object is rotating on its own axis. Right?
As an advocate of the Socratic method of teaching I have the following questions.
Why does the arrival of Gordon on the scene , always preceded by the almost subliminal background sound of canned laughter?
Why does the Socratic method fail so spectacularly when confronted by those who lack the basic intellectual skills to understand the question?
Why do some people cannot understand simple depictions without the elaboration that would be considered superfluous for those with some basic reasoning skills (assuming these people are not blind)?
Anyway while these questions are pondered, I can the join the dots for Gordon with these minor amendments to my previous depictions.
https://i.postimg.cc/L6Bc9406/Lesson-1-A-Elliptical-Orbit.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/g2zfn9fy/Lesson-2-A-Moon-Orbit.gif
If Gordon requires further explanation as to what the two circles and the black line joining one circle to the other represent then I am happy to provide free tuition.
Whatever you say DREM, I am always ready to humour you.
Have you got any specific response to the elliptical orbit depictions? Do you need further assistance like Gordon?
If you are not going to take my question seriously, then I have nothing to say to you.
DREM, you have your opinion on rigid body analogies, I have mine. It has been debated ad nauseum and it is clear that neither of us are going to change their minds, so let’s move on.
However, of course you won’t discuss elliptical orbits ,as you don’t have a clue, do you?
I am throwing down the gauntlet. DREM, show that I am wrong and that you can explain how, in detail, the above depictions can be explained in terms of a non-rotating moon.
Bet you can’t or you won’t.
A predictable diversion* from DREM will now ensue.
* DREM will claim victory re the rigid body analogy (SFYL) or simply shut up shop with a terminal sequence of PSTs or OK,Ms. Anything to avoid dealing with elliptical orbits.
“you have your opinion on rigid body analogies, I have mine. It has been debated ad nauseum and it is clear that neither of us are going to change their minds”
But you did change your mind, recently. You made a huge concession. You finally acknowledged that the movement of a ball on a string, etc, can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.
In which case, you would have to agree with me that an object changing its orientation does not mean the object is rotating on its own axis. Right?
Answer the question in order to proceed.
I was correct about DREM trying to divert from his obvious dilemma. What a lucky guess!
DREM – “But you did change your mind, recently. You made a huge concession. You finally acknowledged that the movement of a ball on a string, etc, can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the objects center of mass.
In which case, you would have to agree with me that an object changing its orientation does not mean the object is rotating on its own axis. Right?
Answer the question in order to proceed.”
No, DREM definitely no change of mind!!!
As I have already said to you 4 days ago, and I repeat verbatim.
“Maybe you should comb through our correspondence over several years and find where I have said explicitly that none of the motions for a rigid plate can be accounted for by a single rotation. If I did, I was either wrong* , taken out of context or just simply misunderstood**.
DREM If you cannot find an explicit case then we can just assume your claim is just more rhetorical b.s.”
So no I have not changed my mind that the fact that a single rotation of an object can be performed by a single rotation ( this is an obvious tautology!) does NOT rule out the equivalent description, that the object is rotating on its own axis in combination with a translation ( included under the umbrella of general planar motion).
See once again-
https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif
So we definitely agree to disagree about the single rigid body analogy, unless you have belatedly changed your mind.
Now that I have addressed your latest attempt to evade replying to your fundamental problem, which I repeat is.
DREM how can the depictions below, showing an elliptically orbit moon, can be explained in terms of a non-rotating moon?
https://i.postimg.cc/L6Bc9406/Lesson-1-A-Elliptical-Orbit.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/g2zfn9fy/Lesson-2-A-Moon-Orbit.gif
So DREM, how are you now going to evade answering? Some quibble about my response? Maybe a tangential revisit to some old correspondence perhaps or just the avoidance techniques described above?
DREM , why not bravely attempt to answer instead? It will save a lot of time.
p.s. I expect Gordon is anxiously waiting for your answer as he seems to have fled the scene. Maybe he is looking for Ftop?
MikeR, according to one of SGW’s many kinematic links (https://web.calpoly.edu/~fowen/DAUST-KinDynMach/9RigidBodyKinematicsVelocity.pdf), the movement of the ball on a string etc. cannot be classed as a general plane motion, because there is a fixed axis of rotation.
"A body can also undergo translation + rotation — that is, a combination of both types of motion, occurring simultaneously, and with no fixed axis of rotation. Rather the point about which the object rotates changes. This is called general plane motion."
In any case, as you acknowledge that the movement of a ball on a string, etc, can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass, you would have to agree with me that an object changing its orientation does not mean the object is rotating on its own axis. Right?
Once you are ready to agree, we can proceed.
With the ball on a string problem I solved, I used a general velocity equation valid for any rigid body. This can be confirmed by viewing another reference source that derives the velocity equation from position vectors for an arbitrary rigid body:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/me317/costello/Me317_cn3.htm#:~:text=%20Two%20Points%20on%20a%20Rigid%20Body%20Formulas,acceleration%20equations%20can%20be%20written%20as%2C%20More%20
See the derived velocity equation in Section 1.
This is the same velocity equation as shown at the bottom of page 3 of the following reference that I had originally used for the ball on a string problem:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
The calculations proved that the ball rotated on its own axis at the same rate as the orbital velocity of the ball. No one could dispute my numbers. My calculations also indicated the velocity of the end of the string where it attached to the ball was the same as the velocity for the inside face of the ball (both calculated independently), which means the string does not wrap around the ball.
…and yet, fixed axis rotation is fixed axis rotation. You lose.
Oh well DREM, just repeating the same argument over and over and over again.
This is your ultimate evasion weapon.
As I have said on numerous occasions, the fact that a “single rotation can be performed using just a single rotation” (putting DREM’s argument in this fashion demonstrates how tautologically dumb the argument is) does not mean any other combination of rotations (and translations if necessary) are automatically excluded!!!
If this is your incredibly stupid thesis then prove it, as I have already disproved it.
See – https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif
So no more repeating yourself DREM, be brave and just face the musiC and once more, courtesy of cut and paste.
DREM how can the depictions below, showing an elliptically orbit moon, be explained in terms of a non-rotating moon?
https://i.postimg.cc/L6Bc9406/Lesson-1-A-Elliptical-Orbit.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/g2zfn9fy/Lesson-2-A-Moon-Orbit.gif
So DREM, how are you now going to evade answering?You must be running out of hiding spots.
p.s. I think I can still hear the canned laughter in the background. Gordon is anxiously waiting for your response.
As a postscript to the above, the reference that DREM linked to has both rotation and translation included under the heading ” Planar Motion” see section 9.2 of
https://web.calpoly.edu/~fowen/DAUST-KinDynMach/9RigidBodyKinematicsVelocity.pdf
Again DREM never reads or understands what he links to.
Anyway I don’t want to distract DREM from his task to see if he can come up with an explanation regarding elliptical orbits and libration for a non-rotating moon.
Yes, MikeR, Section 9.2 was where I got my quote from. Yes, translation and rotation are types of planar motion. It goes through what translation and rotation involve, as well as general plane motion. Here is the quote again:
"A body can also undergo translation + rotation — that is, a combination of both types of motion, occurring simultaneously, and with no fixed axis of rotation. Rather the point about which the object rotates changes. This is called general plane motion."
Making it clear that this (general plane motion) only applies if there is no fixed axis of rotation…but with the ball on a string, there is. So general plane motion does not apply to the ball on a string.
DREM,
I can understand why you are confused about the ball on the string. Rather than being selective you need to read everything in 5.2 and in context.
This is from 5.2 under Planar Motion.
“Pure rotation is rotation about the body s mass center. In this case one can say that the body doesnt go anywhere since the center of mass is stationary. Rotation can also take place around a fixed point that is not the mass center of the body. This is called fixed-axis rotation”
and the part you quoted.
“A body can also undergo translation + rotation that is, a combination of both types of motion, occurring simultaneously, and with no fixed axis of rotation. Rather the point about which the object rotates changes. This is called general plane motion.”
Accordingly the motion of the ball rotating on a string is definitely an example of general planar motion that can be decomposed into other forms of motion.
In particular, the motion of the string and the point at the centre of mass is an example of pure rotation. All parts of the string (and the centre of mass) rotate at a velocity proportional to its distance from the single central axis of rotation which is characteristic of pure rotation.
The ball on the string itself, is in “general plane motion” and can be decomposed into a translation* (pure rotation, as above) and rotation about a single axis through the centre of mass of the ball (also pure rotation as all the components of the ball rotate at a rate proportional to the component’s distance from the centre of mass).
DREM, your concern you about the “no fixed axis of rotation” is misplaced asthis condition is used to distinguish general plane motion from simple rotation.
In this case the ball could be either , not rotating on its axis , or generally rotating at any speed (if it was not rigidly tethered) and in these cases the various points inside the balls do not generally rotate about the same fixed axis.
The curves that are traced out for each point of the ball are either crossovers circles with different axes (n =0) or epicycloids (n >1) that have no single axis. For n = 1 we get concentric circles which corresponds to a fixed axis but this case still fits under the umbrella of general plane motion and can be accordingly decomposed.
The curves for n= 0 to n=4 are shown here in red and blue –
https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
The case of a rotating triangle, tethered by a string to its centre of mass is also a good example of this.
https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif
DREM, if you need me to explain how the rotating triangle depiction above relates to composite motion, I will be happy to explain further, but as you are very smart, I am sure you can work it out.
Finally DREM, after so many string theory diversions, I am acutely aware that you desperately want to talk about the “ball on the string forever”, as it delays the inevitable.
With regards to the inevitable,
DREM confront your fears head on and give us what, Gordon and myself, and in fact the entire world, is waiting for.
Give us your grand unified theory of lunar orbital mechanics that explains libration for a non-rotating Moon.
The multitude of astronomers and physicists who have been living in abject ignorance for years, also await expectantly for you to unveil your crowning achievement. Excursions and space probes to the Moon have been suspended while they anxiously wait for your commentary.
Show mercy and put them, and us, out of our collective misery as quickly as humanly possible. We wait with much anticipation for our deliverance from the yoke of ignorance. God speed.
* translation includes curvilinear translation and thus rotation (where the radius of curvature is a constant).
MikeR, I do not agree with your reading of section 9.2 at all. The breakdown into a translation (not a rotation) of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass is called “general plane motion”, not “general planar motion” and it is clear from this source, and from the Brown notes, that it does not apply when there is a fixed axis of rotation, as is the case with the ball on a string. The ball on a string is simply to be classified as a rotation about a fixed axis which is external to the ball, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
At the very least, you have already conceded that this is certainly one way to describe the motion of the ball on a string etc. As far as I’m concerned it is the most appropriate, most simple and most logical way to describe it, too. If you really want to break it down into a translation plus a rotation then go ahead, but you still only have one axis of rotation for the ball on a string. If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
As for libration etc, I have told you before I have discussed this many times. It’s nothing new. So before you write another rhetoric-drenched 20,000 word essay, here is a link to one of the places I discussed it previously. You are not getting any more than that, sorry.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552026
DREMT, that was sort of clarifying.
Can you summarize your thoughts on libration in a succinct way?
Yes, I did in the linked discussion…and I have nothing more to say on the matter.
DREM,
What a total dissapointment. Your discussion of libration started with,
1. “OK blob, Ill put the same question to you as I did to Svante. Explain libration of longitude, and explainexactlywhy you believe it proves axial rotation of the moon. No descriptionsexplanations please.”
and
2. “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.”
His last sentence was totally correct. This was the end of the story for DREM as the exchanges continued with DREM repeating the same explanation plus argy bargy involving repetitive abuse such as “You are a liar and a troll, Ball4.” and other less abusive, but information free repetition.
No wonder DREMthat you were so incredibly reluctant to discuss your explanation for libration, as it exposed your attempts to define it away by assertion and circular reasoning,
i.e. DREM’s assertion is that the Moon does not rotate and therefore the orientation of the Moon is due solely to orbital motion and therefore the Moon’s libration which is a function of the orientation shows the Moon does not rotate.
DREM, You actually should have read Tesla’s , somewhat incoherent, ad hoc explanation at
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
Tesla argued the moon actually rotates with respect to the radial line joining the Earth and the Moon (in Tesla’s words “The moon actually swings on the axis passing thru its center of gravity on which it is supported like a ball on a string”) and correctly concludes that the energy of rotation is not large with respect to the energy of the Moon’s orbit . He finishes on that note.
Unfortunately for his closing argument, his energy calculation assumes that the moon rotates 360 degrees on its axis once per month!
I think the confused thinking and contradictions is why Tesla’s explanation never got off the ground* and why he is commonly referred to as an eccentric genius. He was usually 99% genius, 1% eccentric but outside his field of competence he was clearly 100% eccentric.
As for DREM, on the basis of his arguments, he appears to be 100% delusional.
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55254882
“plus argy bargy involving repetitive abuse such as “You are a liar and a troll, Ball4.” and other less abusive, but information free repetition.”
That was an accurate assessment of Ball4’s contribution. Unfortunately, everywhere I comment I seem to attract a small but dedicated team of people who denigrate, misrepresent, falsely accuse and attack me continuously. Oh well.
“No wonder DREMthat you were so incredibly reluctant to discuss your explanation for libration, as it exposed your attempts to define it away by assertion and circular reasoning”
The reasoning isn’t circular and nothing is simply asserted. Your following “summary” of my argument is a misrepresentation. As I have come to expect from you.
DREM,
I am sorry you feel so persecuted. People with grandiose beliefs are prone to such feelings when confronted.
However DREM you have provided a succinct summary of your position.
Your argument is just an eviden
ce free assertion, everything else flows from this assertion. If you disagree with my assessment then point out where* you have provided something original and of value.
Useless analogies by definition have no value.
* a byzantine set of links is confusing of course, so just cut and paste the salient points.
I’m happy that people can just read the linked discussion and decide for themselves.
Why don’t you go and denigrate, misrepresent, falsely accuse and just plain ignore the arguments of ftop_t, who has returned further upthread?
We are done.
DRUNKT exits with a whimper:
https://media.giphy.com/media/PoEEr0QN1h70oFxoIV/giphy.gif
Yes Skeptic,
It was certain that it would all end in tears for DREM.
It is also appropriate that DREM started the comments this month with a premature victory speech.
To paraphrase his speech,
No more moons axial rotation argument, please. That has been definitively settled in yet another disastrous Non-Spinners loss so its time to move on.
Despite losing so badly, I am sure DREM will probably declare victory again*. He was never one for evidence.
* DREM is so delusionally obsessed he will probably up at dawn welcoming the new year with another victory speech.
More empty rhetoric from MikeR and co.
MikeR says:
Thanks for explaining DREMTs reasoning MikeR, it’s hard to understand from his own statements.
Svante, please stop trolling.
DREM’s arguments , when reduced down, are nearly always circular but sometimes they are elliptical* …. and only occasionally involve hyperbole.
As for his repetive PSTs , they are indicative of a troll that is stuck in a rut. As rutting season is over this sad troll may need to recycle some of his other trademark annoyances. Let’s see what he comes up with. Stay tuned…
* https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-elliptical-reasoning-and-circular-reasoning
“DREM’s arguments , when reduced down, are nearly always circular but sometimes they are elliptical*”
That is a complete and utter lie.
Oh well DREM has gone hyperbolic and with any luck will end up beyond the Kuiper belt.
What you said was a lie.
DREMT is proven wrong about moon rotation many times. When commenters correctly & politely point that out, it is DREMT attacks those commenters first. This blog simply puts up with DREMT abuse.
Lol.
DREMT is correct,
Paradoxically, I am lying.
Non paradoxically I am lying on the couch.
You lied.
That explains why my pants are on fire.
However is there a corresponding thermodynamic explanation for Trump not self combusting?
Yes, your pants are on fire because you are a liar. You lied. I know you don’t care, but I just thought I would point out that what you said is a lie.
DREM , collect all my lies and add them to Rudy’s collection.
The US Supreme Court can then rule on whether the Moon rotates. Hopefully it won’t be split decision.
Because of its utmost urgency it should take precedence over whether a President can pardon himself and Wade versus Roe.
Why do you keep going on about Trump? I am not a supporter.
Good for you DREM but you may be late to the party. Your incompetence could have served him well in some role. Maybe head of the space agency?
Additionally with regards to Trump, I was just exploring the thermodynamic mysteries of lies. Are they conserved, or are there resources that inexhaustible?
On that latter presidential note, I cannot tell a lie.
President Washington was framed. I chopped down the cherry tree.
Drunk?
Not yet.
OK, MikeR.
DREM, You have gone quiet about the lying theme?
‘Tis a pity.
You lied, and you don’t care about it. What more needs to be said?
Good.
I am playing the “drinking game”. Every stupid or boringly repetitive comment of yours I am taking a shot of my homoeopathic vodka.
As long as no one spikes my drink by watering it down, I could continue the game indefinitely.
What exactly is your problem?
My problem is I have a very low tolerance for fools.
Well how you manage to live with yourself is your own business. What is your problem with me? Not sure what exactly I ever did to upset you so much. Perhaps if you would just stop trolling, you would be happier?
tyson snape…”A rigid body free in space without any constraints can rotate permanently about a principal axis of inertia”.
What this says in English is that a body rotating about its axis in space can rotate permanently if there is no frictional forces to resist its angular momentum.
Gordon Robertson again misses one, most important, point. I have pointed out before that an Engineers core competency is determining the orientation of the principal axes of inertia of a body or surface. Gordon Robertson proves himself unworthy of his self-attributed title of Engineer once again by ignoring the fact that the Moon is a triaxial rigid body with three principal axes, x (pointing towards the Earth), y, and z (the polar axis), and that it therefore has principal moments of inertia A < B < C, respectively. Furthermore, the nonzero quantity (B – A)/C describes the spin-orbit motion and has been calculated from LLR and GRACE data. The Moon (a rigid body free in space without any constraints) can rotate permanently only about a principal axis of inertia (the polar axis).
Gordon Robertson would not even make a good Engineering Intern. He should admit that he is not an Engineer and stop besmirching the profession by association.
“Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.”
The moon rotates about the Earth, and not about its own center of mass. If it rotated about both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
NASA says:
“Q: Does the Moon rotate?
A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.”
Maybe you (Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team) should write to NASA since they seem to be ignoring Gordon Robertsons’ request here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191
The moon rotates about the Earth, and not about its own center of mass. If it rotated about both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about the consequences of adding two rotations together.
However NASA are defining the word “orbit” for the moon, it is not as a rotation about the Earth.
Yes, reading comprehension seems to be a challenge for non-spinners.
You failed to read my comment correctly. It has nothing to do with my reading comprehension, it is about how NASA must be defining the word “orbit” for the moon. You see, they cannot be defining it as a rotation about the Earth, because if so, they would need to rewrite their text as follows:
“Q: Does the Moon rotate on its own axis?
A: No. The Moon only orbits, or rotates about the Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did rotate on its own axis at all, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team is imp[lying that NASA has different meanings for orbit-rotation to fit a narrative, such as he and the rest of the non-spinners. Here is what NASA says about the Earth’s orbit-rotation with respect to Sun:
“Orbit and Rotation
As Earth orbits the Sun, it completes one rotation every 23.9 hours. It takes 365.25 days to complete one trip around the Sun. That extra quarter of a day presents a challenge to our calendar system, which counts one year as 365 days. To keep our yearly calendars consistent with our orbit around the Sun, every four years we add one day. That day is called a leap day, and the year it’s added to is called a leap year.
Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted 23.4 degrees with respect to the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun…”
Highly unlikely since to any sentient adult orbit and rotation in the context of the Solar system are unambiguous.
You haven’t been paying attention to this discussion at all, really, have you Tyson? The point I am making is sailing away, miles over your head. Never mind.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
“, it is about how NASA must be defining the word ‘orbit’ for the moon.”
And yet they seem to be very successful at landing things on the Moon, planets and asteroids.
Thankfully, their definition of ‘orbit’ as a trajectory thru space, which agrees with Astrophysics, has proven to work very well, many times over.
How bout yours?
No trolling here, Ty-Ty. Y’see, the Spinners define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit. Whereas Non-Spinners go with the correct definition, that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined as motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the center of revolution, throughout. As even some of the Spinners are starting to admit, an object that is rotating about an external axis, whilst not rotating about its own center of mass, keeps the same face oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves.
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.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 1:01 PM uses almost 200 words to say that he doesn’t understand the phenomenon of spin-orbit resonance in our solar system. The Earth-Moon binary is locked in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance a.k.a. synchronous rotation and therefore the Moon always keeps approximately the same face towards Earth.
Although 1:1 spin-orbit resonances is very common in other planets and their satellites, other resonances do exist.
Yeah, but what the Spinners see as a “1:1 spin/orbit resonance” the Non-Spinners correctly see as “orbiting without axial rotation”. Haven’t you worked that out yet, Ty-Fighter?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 1:01 PM, I am not sure what your intent was in providing this link, https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287, but I thank you since their definitions of orbit and rotation are consistent with NASA’s definition as stated above:
“Orbit is the motion of one object around another.
Rotation usually refers to something rotating on its axis.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 1:01 PM, since it seems that there is nothing new coming from you, I leave you to your “Emergency Moderating” duties.
Yes, but they also, more specifically, wrote:
“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.”
Settling the issue in the Non-Spinners favor.
Read your reference carefully before swallowing your cherry pits.
Settling the issue in the one non-Spinner’s (ClintR) favor. Which is wrong, that’s the non-winning side.
DREMT is correct & now on the winning side of the debate writing upthread that the moon changes orentation as it orbits Earth and Gordon is correct the moon turns as it orbits Earth.
ClintR is still on the wrong, losing side of the debate. ClintR will remain a lost cause.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Notice how quickly DREMT forgets previous discussions, like the one where we have pointed out his extreme cherry pick of his own reference
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-an
and he neglects to quote the parts which contradict his narrative.
He is really quite a slimy fraudster.
“Read your reference carefully before swallowing your cherry pits.”
You are the one cherry-picking, by the way.
Wow, that was sort of clarifying.
Can you summarize your thoughts on libration in a succinct way?
… wrong place.
Svante, please stop trolling.
ball4…”Upthread DREMT explains the moon changes orientation as it orbits Earth and Gordon explains the moon turns as it orbits Earth; ClintR is now the lone hold out (wrongly) that the moon doesnt do so”.
What’s your point? changing position in an orbit does not mean rotating about a local axis. The Moon is translating in its orbit and any translating body on a curve can change its orientation without rotating about a local axis.
You spinners are seriously confused. You think a horse running a circular or oval track is rotating about its COM. It’s not rotating about its COM any more than it would running in a straight line.
Translation is translation. If it’s in a straight line its called rectilinear translation and on a curve it’s called curvilinear translation. Either way, there is no rotation about a COM unless there is an angular velocity about that COM. The Moon has no local angular velocity about a local COM, period.
Changing position in an orbit does not mean rotating about a local axis is correct Gordon, it means translating point to point.
My point is upthread both Gordon explains the moon turns as it orbits Earth and DREMT explains moon changes orientation as it orbits, both of you have thereby joined the spinners side of the debate. Welcome aboard.
Gordon spews:
The Moon is translating in its orbit and any translating body on a curve can change its orientation without rotating about a local axis.
WRONG, wrong wrong! The moon is not translating in its orbit.
The definition of translation:
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
For translation, a line through the moon must remain parallel to its ORGINAL POSITION. That does not happen with the moon. All points on the moon must have the same velocity. That is not true either. They both must be true.
I seriously don’t believe you attended engineering school. This is basic stuff you would have learned in your first year.
So everything you stated above is complete BS.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon shrieks:
Translation is translation. If it’s in a straight line its called rectilinear translation and on a curve it’s called curvilinear translation.
Yes, translation is translation, you idiot. Where do you think the kinematic term “translation” came from?? It came from the geometric concept:
In Euclidean geometry, a translation is a geometric transformation that moves every point of a figure or a space by the same distance in a given direction[wikipedia]
If every point is moving the same distance in a given direction, the object will NOT rotate. Same thing with kinematics. It will never change its orientation whether moving along a straight line, or along a curved line. Get that through your thick neanderthal skull!
barry…”Yeah, Gordon contradicted himself.
Gordon: Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
and
Gordon: All particles in the Moon must complete an orbit in the same time. That results in the outer particles moving faster than the inner particles.”
***
No, Barry, Gordon did not contradict himself. Both statements are true, the second does not matter with regard to the outer particles moving faster than the inner particles.
We are referencing two types of velocity. With the particles at different velocities, the reference is to tangential velocity. If the orbit is circular, the tangential velocities are perpendicular to a radial line from the axis through the Moon’s centre.
With a rigid body like the Moon, we are not concerned with the individual particle velocities along that radial line through the Moon. We are only concerned with the angular velocity of the radial line.
You can calculate that angular velocity in two ways. You can calculate the rate of change of the angle between the radial line and the x-axis in degrees/second or radians/second. Or, you can specify a point on the radial line at the COM and calculate the rate of change of the radial line in radians/second along the path traced out by the specified point along its path. Depends what you want to accomplish.
If I make a statement such as the Moon completes an orbit every 27+ days, I am saying it travels 360 degrees (presuming circular orbit) in 27+ days. That can be stated for any point along the radial line connecting Earth’s centre right through the Moon and as far out as you like. That radial line completes one orbit (360 degrees = 2pi radians) in 27+ days.
That’s all the info you need to specify the rate of motion of the Moon in its orbit. The velocity of individual particles has nothing to do with it. All of the kinematics of a rigid body are based on its COM. You will never see a calculation in kinematics related to a rigid body in which individual particles are considered.
The COM of the Moon is considered to be at its geometric centre, since it is essentially a sphere. That may be incorrect if the density of the Moon varies sharply from location to location. With a rigid body of irregular shape, other mans are required to determine the COM. No matter where it is located, the kinematics of an irregularly shaped body are related only to its COM.
Having said all that, the individual particles, for sake of discussion can be taken into account to describe the properties of the Moon in its orbit. Since the near side always faces the Earth, a point on the near side that intercepts a radial line will describe a circular orbit. A similar point on the far side describes an outer concentric orbit. All points between describe bazillions of concentric orbits.
That means every point on the Moon is moving parallel to every other point. Since the angular velocities are all the same as well, we have a curvilinear translation by definition and we can rule out any rotation about a local orbit. Any change of orientation wrt the stars of any face of the Moon is completely explained by curvilinear translation.
SkepticGoneMad is confounded by that since he simply does not understand rigid body mechanics. He thinks the tangential velocity of each particle matters and the truth is they don’t matter a hoot.
Gordon moans:
Since the angular velocities are all the same as well, we have a curvilinear translation by definition and we can rule out any rotation about a local orbit.
Totally wrong! You get this wrong ALL THE TIME. The requirement for curvilinear translations is that all points on a rigid body have the same VELOCITY, not angular velocity, and so you can’t rule out any rotations about a local axis, either
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
That is why it’s important to calculate the velocity of points on the far and near side of the moon. A point on the far side of the moon travels a longer distance than a point on the near side of the moon during the same time period. Therefore the velocities are different, and therefore the moon is not undergoing curvilinear translation.
So your statements did conflict, and you still don’t understand curvilinear translation.
skeptic…”The requirement for curvilinear translations is that all points on a rigid body have the same VELOCITY, not angular velocity, and so you can’t rule out any rotations about a local axis, either
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”.
***
From your link, the full description re bodies in translation and bodies rotating about a fixed axis.
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation”.
***
Point one…just noticed that curvilinear is an oxymoron. A curve is based on a non-linear function whereas a straight line is represented by a linear function. Curvilinear translation should really be called curved translation. That might wake up the pundits writing textbooks.
Point two…I warned you about introductory textbooks and their propensity to severely simplify definitions. The statement about translation is far too simplified. It has lumped rectilinear and curvilinear translation under the same simple statement without addressing the differences between motion in a straight line and motion along a curve.
In some introductory text books they claim lines in a body must move parallel to each other during translation but this definition omits the parallel requirement. In other words, they really don’t know what curvilinear translation means, other than through their myopic views.
In order for the term to have meaning in physics it has to apply to the motion of all rigid bodies on a curved path. If you limit it to Ferris wheel gondolas and a cannon ball shot from a cannon on a cliff, it has no application in general.
If you apply curvilinear translation as the term is intended it means changing position along a curve. Rectilinear translation means changing position along a straight line. So, what’s the difference between the two?
If I take a cardboard box, light enough to slide along a floor, I can slide it from point a to point b in a straight line and it will fulfill the requirements of rectilinear translation. If I want to move that box along a circular track on a floor, based on your interpretation of curvilinear translation, how do I get the box from 3 o’clock to 12 o’clock while ensuring that all particles making up the box move only at the same velocity and parallel to each other?
Obviously, I have to redefine translation for a curve. Translation means simply to relocate a mass from one point to another. In general, we have two ways of doing that: either change the x-y coordinates of motion between the points or change the angle (and length) a radial line connected to a mass makes with the x-axis.
If I am moving the box on a circle I am going to stipulate that a mark on the box facing the centre of the circle must always face the centre of the circle. I can make it easier to move the box by picking it up and walking it from 3 o’clock to 12 o’clock. The mark will always point to the centre of the circle if I pick it up and walk it there.
Note that the box cannot rotate about its COM because I am holding it and preventing it from rotating. However, it is facing west at 3 o’clock and facing south at 12 o’clock, therefore the marked face has re-oriented without rotating about its COM.
The box has also translated from 3 o’clock to 12 o’clock without rectilinear translation. How is that possible if there is no such thing as curvilinear translation? I am holding the box and I am translating but the points and my body are not following the definition of rectilinear translation.
What is going on? You can’t claim I am rotating about the centre of the track, there is no axis for my motion. I am essentially self-powered and walking in short bursts of straight lines, which is translation, but not rectilinear translation.
To view my motion, we can draw a circle on the x-y plane centred at 0,0. Start my walk at 5,0 = 3 o’clock. To track my walk we’ll use a radial line from 0,0 to 5,0. I’m holding the box with its marked side pointing at 0,0. As I walk the circle, the radial line is tracking me but note that it is not attached to me or affecting my motion in any way.
As I move along the circle, an angle is formed between the radial line and the x-axis. The rate at which that angle changes measures my angular velocity in degrees/second or radians/second, since 1 radian = 57.3 degrees. Since there are 6.28 radians in a circumference and the radius length is 5, we know the circumference = 2piR = 31.4 units. So I can track my velocity along the circle circumference using the change in angle in radians per second or in any unit/second.
Note that the velocity of individual particles in my body have nothing to do with the calculation of my velocity. It is based on my angular velocity only at that radius. No one cares if my right arm is moving faster than my left arm, it’s superfluous to the calculation.
No one in physics considered individual particle velocities when calculating the velocity of a rigid body in a straight line or on a curve. If that body is rotating about its COM, that is another matter. However, rotating about a COM requires an angular velocity about that COM.
For all intents and purposes, every particle in my body is considered as moving at the same velocity around the circle. Since I am holding the box, the same applies to the box. At 3 o’clock I am facing north, and 12 o’clock, I am facing west, at 9 o’clock south, and at 6 o’clock east. I have pointed in every direction of the compass yet my body has not rotated about its COM.
The proof. When I started at 3 o’clock, my left arm was pointed to the centre of the circle and my right arm further away. As I walked the circle, my left arm and right arm traced out concentric circles. Had my body rotated about its COM, by the 9 o’clock position I’d have rotated so I was walking backwards. The mark on the box would then be facing away from the centre of the circle.
There is no rotation of my body during this walk around the circle and I was simply translating in the same manner as I would had I walked in a straight line. At all times, and at each instant, all parts of my body were moving parallel to each other and at the same angular velocity. Individual particle velocities has no bearing on this calculation.
Since I was translating on a curved path I cannot call it rectilinear translation. Therefore it must be curvilinear translation. If the textbooks don’t like that, they need to update.
I have used electrical engineering textbooks that claim electrical current flows positive to negative. That is dead wrong. Electrical current is comprised of electrons and their charges and electrons can only flow negative to positive. The EE paradigm has persisted since circa 1925 so don’t tell me textbooks are always accurate.
OMG. Instead of Gordon realizing his mistake regarding curvilinear translation, he digs himself deeper in a hole, confirming he never took an engineering class in his life.
Gordon shrieks:
Point one…just noticed that curvilinear is an oxymoron. A curve is based on a non-linear function whereas a straight line is represented by a linear function
I can only shake my head. The reason its called curvilinear translation is because it is a translatory movement along a curve! The body moves along a curve without changing its orientation, you fool. Why do you think they call it “translation”? A translating object does not change its orientation. An object that translates just changes its position without performing any kind of rotation.
Gordon moans:
Point two…I warned you about introductory textbooks and their propensity to severely simplify definitions.
The definition I provided was from lecture notes for a Brown University class in rigid body kinematics. That is not an introductory class. You can look up the definition for curvilinear translation in any textbook or lecture notes. They are ALL the same. A translating object NEVER rotates or changes orientation.
Even Tesla knew what curvilinear translation was. His Figure 5 with the 8 balls attached to arms. When axles were unlocked the position of the half shaded areas always pointed down when moving. He said it was a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V. With rectilinear OR curvilinear translation the requirement is that all points on the object have the same velocity.
You do not get to decide kinematic definitions just because you don’t like them or understand them!
Here’s another reference source:
http://www.engineering.uco.edu/~aaitmoussa/Courses/ENGR2043/Dynamics/Chapter4/ch4.pdf
Translation: Every line segment in the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion. Curvilinear translation: All points follow curved paths that are of the same shape and are equidistant from one another.
Gordon moans:
In order for the term to have meaning in physics it has to apply to the motion of all rigid bodies on a curved path.
Wrong! Most objects that move along a curve are not translating. They are rotating.
The main idea of translation is that the object will not change orientation whether moving in a straight line or whether following a curve.
You just proved WHY you are in this moon non-rotation cult. It’s because you are absolutely clueless regarding kinematics.
tyson snape…”But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”.
***
You cherry picked leaving out Newton’s point that the menstrual cycle is wrt the stars. He is clearly saying that the Moon revolves around the Earth but that the Moon changes position during it’s orbit wrt the stars with the change in position cycle being equal to the orbital period.
I have in recent past enumerated reasons why, if you are in fact an Engineer Gordon Robertson, you are not very competent. Let us add poor reading comprehension to that list.
It is likely though that you have not read the text of “PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.” Newton’s point is that with respect to the fixed stars the Moon, not unlike the planets and the sun, revolves about its axis in “27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
I have, for your and all the non-spinners’ benefit, inserted the complete text from Motte’s translation here https://ibb.co/1stJjgt,
but I doubt that any of you can comprehend it.
“The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
TYSON MCGUFFIN
I guess that Robertson and his three or four servile, obsequious altar boys very well understand what Newton wrote.
They all try to deny evident facts, above all the one that
– when Newton writes about a celestial body revolving “with respect to the fixed stars”, this does not at all mean that it wouldn’t revolve “with respect to” anything else
exactly like
– when a body orbits “with respect to the fixed stars”, this also does not at all mean that it wouldn’t orbit “with respect to” anything else.
*
Robertson et alii have certainly understood by now that the expression “with respect to the fixed stars” only affects the measurement of periodic movements like orbiting around a planet, or revolving about an internal axis, but of course not the movements themselves.
They just wants to throw sand in the eyes, and will do that repeatedly, all the time again.
No one knows why they need to.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
Note that so far the non-spinners have:
agreed that “Newton and Galileo got it right,” referring to PROPOSITION XVII-THEOREM XV;
laughably asked of NASA, “would you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis,” to no avail and,
provided a link http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575884 that defines orbit and rotation in the same unambiguous terms as NASA’s misconceptions page.
A lost cause!
You best be off, then.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
You people keep complaining that you are bored or that it’s a lost cause, etc, but then you keep coming back for more. I’m just pointing out that you can always leave the debate at any time. Nobody is asking you to comment.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Until now, I see none of the denier gang really agreeing to the evidence of the Moon rotating about its axis (aka spinning or, in Newton’s wording: revolving).
Even when I would describe here how e.g. Tobias Mayer proved the Lunar spin by applying a long sequence of trigonometric transformations to his Moon spot observations during over a year, they still wouldn’t believe it.
Simply because Pseudoskeptics accept at best what they can understand. If an explanation is too complex for them, it is automatically wrong.
Thus, instead of learning how to scientifically contradict what they doubt, Pseudoskeptics prefer to stay comfortably in their typical posture
” I think the author is wrong; prove me wrong. ”
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon.
skepticgone mad…”This is the same velocity equation as shown at the bottom of page 3 of the following reference that I had originally used for the ball on a string problem:”
You are one serious clown. Every example to which you refer has bodies rotating about an axis with angular velocity w. Applied to the Earth-Moon interface that would mean the Moon is both translating and rotating about a local axis in its orbit.
The meaning is clear, the Moon would have to rotate through 360 degrees about its axis per orbit, meaning it could not possibly keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
Sure it could Gordon by moon rotating on its own axis 360 per orbit just as observed & from the room watching someone swinging a ball on string.
Gordon yelps:
You are one serious clown.
OMG! You are the IDIOT who STILL cannot figure out curvilinear translation! You were too embarrassed to address your ignorant comments upthread where you were confronted for making conflicting statements regarding the moon’s velocity, and for ignorantly claiming the moon undergoes curvilinear translation.
I performed the ball on a string proof absolutely correctly, and you could not find any errors in my calculations. I used standard published kinematic equations for the motion of a rigid body. The proof indicated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the ball rotates once on its own axis per one orbit. The professor and his sphere/rod calculations came up with the same type result.
The ball on a string is rotating about a fixed axis, that is external to the ball. The ball is not rotating about its own center of mass.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/snoring.gif
;
The ball on a string is rotating about a fixed axis, that is external to the ball. The ball is not rotating about its own center of mass.
Your yelping of slogans is duly noted.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/771a80122af1fa8ae5ad853734f6222b/tenor.gif?itemid=5725569
All backed up by textbook definitions, ftop_t’s proof, and agreed with by many of those on your own side of the debate.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/771a80122af1fa8ae5ad853734f6222b/tenor.gif?itemid=5725569
Your repetitive use of gifs is duly noted.
tyson snape…Newton is not talking about a rotation about the Moon’s axis. The article with regard to the Moon is about the Moon’s libration, not rotation about its axis.
In each reference to a planet orbiting he uses the word revolves in lieu of orbits, or rotates.
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis…”
It’s clear that he is using the word revolution to mean an orbit, therefore when he talks about the Moon’s uniform revolution about its axis he is clearly talking about the Earth as its axis. Nowhere does he mention that the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
Furthermore, he is talking about the lunar day, which has nothing to do with the Moon rotating on an axis. The lunar day is produced by the orbital motion. I am referring to a day, of course, as the period during which the Moon is lit with solar energy and that is due entirely to the Moon’s position in its orbit, and nothing to do with it rotating on a local axis.
Here is the entire article as pertains to the Moon and its libration:
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. In the article, which follows, he sates:
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phnomena. The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 days. But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; 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;
Perhaps a more modern translation will be easier for you to grasp, as given at this link
https://tinyurl.com/Principia-Cohen-and-Whitman
Translations are the problem, the translators are taking liberties with the Latin offered by Newton and adding their own meanings to his words. It’s obvious, based on Newton’s overall description, that he said nothing about the Moon completing a 360 degree rotation on its axis per orbit. It would not be possible for the Moon to keep the same side pointed to the Earth while rotating 360 degrees on its axis.
I proved that using two coins sitting side by side. Mark an arrow on the movable coin pointing to the centre of the stationary coin and try to roll it around the stationary coin while keeping the arrow pointed at the stationary coin.
The arrow must turn through 360 degrees in order to complete a rotation about its axis. It is impossible to do that while keeping the arrow in one place, while pointed at the centre of the stationary coin.
Even if you use the stars as the reference, the mark cannot rotate around its axis while always pointing at the stationary coin. All parts of the movable coin must move in concentric circles and the only way to do that is by SLIDING the coin around the other while adjusting the arrow. That adjustments replicates the action of gravity on the Moon’s linear momentum vector.
Gordon should note that using non-touching two coins sitting side by side. Mark an arrow on the movable coin pointing to the centre of the stationary coin and try to roll it around the stationary coin while keeping the arrow pointed at the stationary coin.
The arrow must turn through 360 degrees in order to complete a rotation about its axis. It is easy to do that while keeping the arrow pointed at the centre of the stationary coin.
https://tinyurl.com/Principia-Cohen-and-Whitman
Now, since a lunar day (the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis) is a month long [i.e., is equal to a lunar month, the periodic time of the moon’s revolution in its orbit], the same face of the moon will always very nearly look in the direction of the further focus of its orbit, and therefore will deviate from the earth on one side or the other according to the situation of that focus
The translation by Cohen and Whitman is nothing like the Latin written by Newton. In fact, Newton used the word gyrare, which can no longer be translated into English.
The Google translator has become quite good at translating languages but it makes a hideous mess of the old Latin used by Newton. It cannot delineate ‘rotating on its axis’ from the reference to menstrual cycles.
I think the problem is that Newton spoke old English and translated old English into old Latin. I am giving him benefit of any doubt because he was brilliant and there’s no way he would have claimed the Moon rotated on its axis as understood by the modern meaning of rotation. That interpretation comes from modernists who believe it to be true that the Moon rotates on its axis and have imposed their own belief system on what Newton intended.
Gordon Robertson, Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” I hope you are being well compensated for your seeming obtuseness.
“Upton Sinclair said…”
I dismiss 99.99% of what anyone says, I want proof.
binny…” when Newton writes about a celestial body revolving with respect to the fixed stars, this does not at all mean that it wouldnt revolve with respect to anything else”
Newton states…”Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
He says the Moon revolves in 27 days, t hours, and 43 minutes. That has to mean it revolves about the Earth, not about its axis.
Then he says, “But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis…”.
Newton is saying the same thing we non-spinners are saying. The Moon revolves around the Earth and at the same time revolves wrt the stars but not around its own axis, but around the Earth as its axis.
Newton was not stupid, he would have understood clearly that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate 360 degrees about its own axis and still keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
Sure it can.
Newton was not stupid
Yes, Gordon, but how likely is it that 99.99% of all science indicates the moon rotates on its own axis, but the genius Gordon somehow knows better?
Especially since Gordon displays his stupidity by claiming:
1. The Moon is translating in its orbit.
2. Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
3. You will never see a calculation in kinematics related to a rigid body in which individual particles are considered.
4. No matter where it is located, the kinematics of an irregularly shaped body are related only to its COM.
#1 violates every definition of translation that you will find.
#2 If you can’t figure out why this is wrong, you’re an idiot.
#3 and #4 I provided a kinematic formula for two points on and arbitrary rigid body which are not labeled as the COM. Page 3, bottom figure at the following:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
Robertson
You are really the densest, dumbest liar I have ever seen writing on any blog on Earth.
Here are Newton’s words:
” 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… ”
It is useless to try to brazenly manipulate Newton a posteriori, and to deny what he wrote.
He clearly explained what he meant. And it is technically even more clear when you read the foot notes in the original Latin text of the 1726 edition of his Principia.
But… people like you, who are ready to any lie, never are able to read such texts. You lack any knowledge, cleverness and technical skill to do that.
Case closed.
Everybody who has a brain and who is honest sees that you permanently lie.
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon.
DREMT
I think you are deeply, honestly convinced of the idea being correct that Moon doesn’t spin about its axis.
Maybe because Tesla’s small paper and those written by some contemporary Serbian admirators of Tesla, e,.g.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1993POBeo..44..119T&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES
appeal to you more and convince you better than information that doesn’t match your needs.
*
I have no problem at all to live with that. We all have our meaning.
What I can’t accept is that people either
– distort and misrepresent what has been unequivocally formulated by a scientist
or
– woefully discredit and denigrate the work of a scientist, without having themselves ever been able to scientifically contradict him.
That, DREMT, is inacceptable and disgusting.
J.-P. D.
Sorry, I forgot the scanner’s problems.
https://tinyurl.com/y7k5ulbq
OK, Bindidon.
binny…”Tobias Mayer proved the Lunar spin by applying a long sequence of trigonometric transformations to his Moon spot observations during over a year, they still wouldnt believe it”.
Mayer proved nothing. In fact, he screwed up with the forces acting on the Moon. He was a mathematician who lacked a basic understanding of physics. There was no need to go into his convoluted mathematical analysis, he could simply have read Newton and gotten it right.
Or, he could have read a real German physicist like Rudolf Clausius and learned the math related to physics.
Robertson
1. ” Mayer proved nothing. In fact, he screwed up with the forces acting on the Moon. ”
Here too, you behave as an ignorant, pretentious and stubborn boaster.
How can you know that, you little uneducated, illiterate boy?
You don’t know anything of Mayer’s work.
I know what he did: because I just finished a second pass over his original, 130 pages long German text – what you never would be able to read, digest, let alone understand.
(I confess that sometimes, the elder typography made some places a bit hard for me to understand, and I then needed a little help from Rose – you know, my alleged ‘female sock-puppet’.)
*
2. ” There was no need to go into his convoluted mathematical analysis, he could simply have read Newton and gotten it right. ”
In his treatise on the rotation of the Moon about its axis, Mayer’s very first task was to ensure, by using Newton’s gravity laws, that the Moon was similar enough to a sphere, what was the precondition for successfully using trigonometric calculations.
If you were an educated person having learned French, German, together with a bit of English and Latin, you would be able to see how incredibly knowledged Mayer was concerning Newton’s science, a science YOU do know nothing about, because you never have learned anything of it!
Look in Mayer’s treatise in Section 3:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
” Bestimmung der Figur des Monds aus den Gesetzen der Schwere ”
i.e. in English
” Determination of the figure of the Moon from the laws of gravity ”
There, on pages 60 till 77, you see what you would NEVER be able to do!
That hard work, Robertson, you need for proving that a spheroid is of sufficient sphericity.
You are such a poor, dumb ass, Robertson… and the very best is that YOU never have read Newton!
Nor have you ever engineered anything, for example the micrometer Mayer designed and fabricated for his own observation purposes, because he wasn’t satisfied by those available.
Why don’t you finally shut up, instead of endlessly putting your waste on this wonderful blog?
J.-P. D.
binny…”Here are Newtons words:
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
It is useless to try to brazenly manipulate Newton a posteriori, and to deny what he wrote”.
***
We don’t know exactly what he wrote since the above is a translation from Latin. I am betting the translator added ‘about its axis’. I say that because the rest of the article makes it clear that the planets, including the Moon, revolve, and he used the world revolution rather than rotate.
I’ll bet all he said was that:
“…arising from its uniform revolution…”.
I’ll bet dollars to donuts that he was talking about the orientation of the Moon as it revolved and not about it rotating on its axis. Newton noted that the same side of the Moon always faced the upper focus, which is the Earth. A man of his brilliance would have noted immediately that the requirements of the same face always facing the Earth meant the Moon could not rotate on its axis.
Only dummies would leap to such a conclusion.
Robertson
” We don’t know exactly what he wrote since the above is a translation from Latin. I am betting the translator added ‘about its axis’. ”
Only an uneducated, illiterate, ignorant but nonetheless extremely pretentious person like you can be dumb and brazen enough to put his ridiculous, egocentric ideas not only above science, but also above the history of science, and to pretend things about sources and their translations he knows absolutely nothing about.
*
Here is Newton’s original Latin text of the third edition of his Principia Scientifica (1726), translated by Andrew Motte in 1729:
https://tinyurl.com/ycokq9ys
This text I have presented numerous times, but you discredited and denigrated it ad nauseam:
” 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. ”
or, in 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. ”
*
And the origin of the bold sentence in Motte’s translation above (my emphasis) is to be found in the foot note (e), entitled
” (e) 76. Semper respiciet quamproximè ”
There you see:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit… ”
If you are not even able to understand what Sir Isaac Newton wrote, then… what the heck are you doing here, you boaster?
*
” Only dummies would leap to such a conclusion. ”
This would mean that thousands and thousands of people would be dummies.
How can a stubborn idiot like you name geniuses like Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Delaunay and the long sequence of science men and women following them, “dummies” ?
You wouldn’t be able to reproduce half a millionth of their work, let alone to scientifically contradict it!
I rather see that YOU, Robertson, and your few servile, obsequious altar boys, clearly ARE these dummies.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, Cassini was the only one that really messed up.
Besides you, of course.
ClintR
YOU know NOTHING about Cassini, let alone about all those who came after him.
You are an ignorant boaster and liar – as is Robertson.
J.-P. D.
JD, the more your attempts to pervert reality fail, the more frustrated and vindictive you become. That’s why you lose control, and start throwing out the insults and false accusations.
It might be time for you to seek therapy.
binny …taken from your link to Newton’s Latin, the phrase Newton used is:
“Quoniam ver Lunae circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus semper respiciet quamproxim, et propterea prosuum gyrare”.
Motte writes it as:
“Quoniam vero Lun CIRCA AXEM SUUM uniformiter revolventis DIES MENSTRUUS EST, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus semper respiciet quamproxim, et propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde a Terr”.
He has added “…pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde a Terr, because “…et propterea prosuum gyrare.” cannot be translated correctly.
In other words, Motte is a cheating SOB and his translation cannot be accepted. The sad truth is that the old Latin used by Newton, as I suspected, is not being translated correctly.
This makes you even more of an idiot for blindly appealing to authority.
Robertson
” … taken from your link to Newton’s Latin, the phrase Newton used is:
” Quoniam ver Lunae circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus semper respiciet quamproxim, et propterea pro[ ]suum gyrare. ”
*
Poor Robertson, who is permanently busy with writing his egocentric blah blah, and thus doesn’t even see that he mixes, in Newton’s text, the main paragraphs and the foot notes, though they were typeset using different character sizes.
The correct text is very well:
” 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. ”
The text ‘suum gyrare’ has nothing to do with that above; it is no more than the continuation of the foot note on page 51:
” Attamen nil obstat quominus ex analogiae lege colligamus Mercurium quoque et Saturnum circa axem suum gyrare. ”
*
That in itself is not a problem! Errare humanum est.
The problem is what illiterate persons like you do with it, namely to cowardly and woefully discredit others:
” Motte is a cheating SOB ”
Pfui Deibel, Rose says in Bavarian dialect. I prefer not to write what she added behind.
*
You are here by far worse than the idiot you see in me, Robertson.
You are an arrogant, ignorant dumb ass, who is unable to properly read documents, and denigrates the work of others on the basis of own mistakes.
*
Stop writing about Newton, Mayer and others, and go back to the kindergarten, where you can continue to fight with the Spinners about curvilinear translations. That’s the right corner for you.
J.-P. D.
A non-spinner’s head is a vast vaccum domicilium
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Oh look!
The courageous moderator complains about TYSON MCGUFFIN’s slight sarcasm
” A non-spinners head is a vast vaccum domicilium ”
but says nothing about Robertson’s harsh, coward and disgusting insult
” Motte is a cheating SOB ”
Great, DREMT. You teach us a lot about impartiality…
*
And let me tell you, DREMT, that my lady IMHO got it clearly right, as she said to me in German a few hours ago
” Robertson’s wording stinks to heaven, it seems to be coming straight out of his asshole. ”
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“Ken says:
December 6, 2020 at 9:09 PM
My Question is about the ‘Great Conjunction’ billed to show up 21 Dec 2020.
The question comes after watching a video where it is claimed the ‘Great Conjunction’ that happens every 800 years or so is somehow responsible for altering the suns activity making it go retrograde around the barycenter and triggers a mini ice age. ”
Ken, as is true with all observable natural phenomena, the unsupported claims in your referenced video did not stand the test of time. In matters of celestial mechanics if Isaac Newton didn’t model it, it is likely a myth.
As much as the idiots want to deny the simple analogy of a ball on a string, they can’t.
They can’t deny reality, but they believe they can.
That’s why they’re idiots.
clint…”They cant deny reality, but they believe they can”.
Unfortunately, the same idiot mindset is running the show with regard to climate change and covid. We are at the beginning of a 4 year stint of such idiocy. Their leader, Sleazy Joe, has just announced that the worst days of covid are still ahead.
Translation: these dweebs now have the means to impose any idiocy they like on an unwitting population.
They’ve got the sheep scared. It’s all about gaining power.
They won’t give power back until enough people revolt.
skeptic…”I performed the ball on a string proof absolutely correctly, and you could not find any errors in my calculations”
You can always tell an idiot by how much he complains via ad homs and insults without explaining what he means. I did not even address your ridiculous calculations for the simple reason that observation sees no angular motion or momentum about an axis. Only a blithering idiot would try to apply math to an object with no evidence that it is rotating.
Your calculations are based on a sphere ATTACHED to the end of a massless rod tat is rotating on an axis. You still have not explained how a sphere attached to a rod can rotate about its COM.
According to your sci-fi logic, a merry-go-round with its perimeter locked in place by a locking device so it cannot turn, is still rotating because it is attached to the Earth, which is rotating.
I’m wondering how you get access to a computer and the Net in the institution to which you are obviously confined.
Gordon wails:
Your calculations are based on a sphere ATTACHED to the end of a massless rod tat is rotating on an axis. You still have not explained how a sphere attached to a rod can rotate about its COM.
I did explain how the sphere attached to a rod (or string) can rotate around the COM. You were not paying attention or simply are too stupid to understand.
Look at the figure at the bottom of page 3 of the following:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
I had explained this already, but you were not paying attention. The orange arbitrary figure will be replaced with a sphere. Point A is at the sphere’s center of mass. Point B is on the far outside edge of the sphere.
As the sphere performs an orbit, the position vector rB/A makes a 360 rotation around the sphere’s center of mass (Point A) wrt to the x-axis for one orbit. The attached rod just rotates along with the sphere so there is no issue.
It’s that simple.
Wrong again, SGW.
You are confused about the links you find. You can’t understand your own sources, like Norman.
The orange figure shown is rotating. That means it is rotating. Something that is NOT rotating is NOT rotating. If you were able to learn, a good place to start would be to learn the difference between “rotating” and “not rotating”.
There is a difference.
CLintR continues to yelp his useless slogans:
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/source.gif
Why should we listen to a clown who cannot solve a simple velocity problem for the ball on a string, or moon? Right. We don’t listen.
skeptic…”I did explain how the sphere attached to a rod (or string) can rotate around the COM”
Would you slow down for a minute and get a grip on yourself? How does a freaking sphere ATTACHED to a rod turn independently of the rod? First answer that.
How does a wooden horse BOLTED TO THE FLOOR of a carousel turn about its COM?
How does a ball attached to a string, turn around its COM without wrapping itself up in the string?
In all three cases, the angular velocity/momentum about the COM is absent. No angular velocity about the COM means no rotation about the COM.
Gordon whimpers:
How does a freaking sphere ATTACHED to a rod turn independently of the rod? First answer that.
I did clearly answer that. You just don’t get it. And you never will get it. Just like you don’t understand curvilinear translation.
The sphere does not turn independently of the rod. However, the position vector’s motion is not measured wrt the rod. The position vector’s (rB/A) motion, or orientation (change of position), is measured wrt the x axis.
skeptic…”The sphere does not turn independently of the rod. However, the position vectors motion is not measured wrt the rod. The position vectors (rB/A) motion, or orientation (change of position), is measured wrt the x axis”.
***
The velocity vector’s orientation changes, which explains how the Moon can keep the same face to the Earth while NOT rotating on its axis. It changes because gravity nudges the Moon into an orbit.
The velocity vector to which you refer is not a rotating vector with respect to the sphere COM. It is a vector of the entire unit, rod + sphere, and indicates the instantaneous change of position (translation) of the unit.
Prof Beanie screwed up by making the rod massless and moving the COM to the geometric centre of the sphere.
LAMO. Gordon calls me an idiot when he can’t even understand the simple kinematic concept of curvilinear translation. Every reference source you can find has the same definition. No reference source agrees with Gordon’s stupid, made-up definition.
Even in the field of geometry, the concept of translation is the same:
In Euclidean geometry, a translation is a geometric transformation that moves every point of a figure or a space by the same distance in a given direction. [Wikipedia]
As indicated above, the concept of translation displaces an object by moving it to a new position where its orientation never changes. It’s the same concept in the field of kinematics:
Translation takes place when a body moves so that all parts of it travel exactly the same distance, in the same direction, in the same time. The line taken can be a straight line (rectilinear translation), or a curved one (curvlinear translation)
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7808325/25/images/3/Translation+(Linear+Motion).jpg
But the genius Gordon can’t figure this out.
What characterizes translation is that a line scored on the surface of a body does not change its orientation as it moves. The figure below (Fig 9.2) shows two cases of translationrectilinear translation (along a straight-line path) and curvilinear translation. In both cases, the line between points A and B stays
pointed in the same direction as the body moves.
https://web.calpoly.edu/~fowen/me212/9RigidBodyKinematicsVelocity.pdf
But, no! Gordon knows better than all the universities in the country!!
skeptic…”What characterizes translation is that a line scored on the surface of a body does not change its orientation as it moves…”
Once again, we have the definition of a myopic idiot wearing coke-bottle glasses who cannot see beyond the end of his nose. What is the point of restricting curvilinear translation to such an idiotic premise?
If you have a car moving down a straight highway, no one has a problem calling that rectilinear translation. The car has translated a to b in a straight line so everyone is happy. If the same car hits a bend in the road, it suddenly stops translating and begins to rotate about its COM, according to you spinners.
If you have the same car on a circular track with point a at one point, and point b 180 degrees opposite point a, the car still translates a to b but this time on a curve. At no time does the car rotate about its COM because that would mean it had to turn 180 degrees so it is facing backwards at point b.
I pointed out in a recent post that curvilinear is an oxymoron. A bit like you in that you are both forms of morons. I have no idea who came up with the word but I am sure far more was intended for it than stupid examples that can never be applied in reality. Where the heck would you find a body with a line drawn on it that can never move unless the line is always parallel to it’s initial position?
My definition of curvilinear translation makes far more sense than any of the nonsense you have presented and it is based on real math and physics. Furthermore, it explains clearly why the Moon is not rotating on its axis but translating around its orbit.
I would prefer to call the Moon’s motion translation on a curved path but curvilinear works too. With its same face always pointed at the Earth it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon to rotate about its own axis.
I am currently investigating what Newton meant with his reference to lunar motion. He wrote in old Latin and that had to be translated from old English. Binny has presented nonsense from an interpreter who has embellished the words used by Newton in Latin because one of the words used, gyrare, does not translate to English. Since the translator felt free to embellish Newton’s words, I’m sure he did not stop there.
There are two types of displacement, or motion:
The instantaneous net movement of a body via rigid motion is called a rigid displacement, which may result from translation (linear displacement, i.e. a change in position), rotation
(angular displacement, i.e. a change in orientation), or both at the same time.
https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf
So a rigid body can either be translating, or rotating. Forget the combo for now.
A translating body DOES NOT ROTATE. No part of a translating body ever rotates. That is just the definition of translation. Sorry if you cannot grasp this simple concept.
SGW starts to understand: “A translating body DOES NOT ROTATE. No part of a translating body ever rotates.”
It the motion is ONLY translational, as with Moon and the ball on a string, then there is no axial rotation. One side always faces the center of orbit.
And Kinematics does NOT apply to orbital motion, as explained in the Cornell U definition.
In his Figure 5, Tesla indicated the motion was translation when the balls were unlocked and facing the same direction during the orbit (the shaded half-sphere pointing down):
a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V
Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?
STILL waiting for your velocity calculations for the moon and ball on string.
skeptic…”So a rigid body can either be translating, or rotating. Forget the combo for now.
A translating body DOES NOT ROTATE. No part of a translating body ever rotates. That is just the definition of translation. Sorry if you cannot grasp this simple concept.”
^^^
You are the one having trouble with simple concepts as well as reading comprehension.
Later in the same article, they claim that translation can be regarded as rotation with the rotation axis at infinity. I don’t agree since they are extending the parallel axes of a 4 wheeled cart and claiming the parallel lines will converge at infinity. There is no mathematical or scientific proof that parallel lines ever converge.
Having said that, this article is about the application of physics and math to robots. Therefore, all rotations will be through a rigid body and about an axis.
It’s interesting that they disperse with the differentiation between rectilinear and curvilinear translation and reduce all translation to instantaneous translation. I think that’s the proper way to deal with such problems.
If you apply that to the Moon, or any rigid body moving on a curved path, at any one instant the body is translating in a straight line. The summation of those instantaneous motions, which involved the translation of a vector, whose direction (orientation) is always changing, is what I consider to be curvilinear translation.
In other words, the definitions given in certain textbooks are far too restrictive and simplified. Translation must apply to all motion, either on a straight line or a curve, it cannot be restricted in relation to curved paths in the same way it is applied on a linear path.
I pointed out that curvilinear is an oxymoron. As applied to translation it infers a body translation along a straight line and a curve at the same time. Ideally, a curve is an infinite series of straight lines so in that application, curvilinear means a summation of instantaneous linear lines.
However, this does not imply at any time that the rigid body is rotating about its local axis. It’s entirely possible for a rigid body to translate in a circle, while the velocity vector points in every direction of the compass, without the body having to rotate about a local axis.
I might add that parallel lines converge at infinity only in the human mind. In order to see in 3-D perspective, the human mind imposed a convergence of parallel lines to infinity on what it sees.
I recall an exercise we were given in engineering early in one course on perspective. It was for an engineering drawing class. We had to tape a clear piece of plastic to a window while viewing a building then trace the outline of the building onto the plastic.
I taped the plastic to the side window off my car and viewed a local 4 story building from one end. When the drawing was finished, it became obvious that the horizontal lines of the building were not parallel but converging.
That’s how my human perspective was seeing the building. Same with railway tracks. As the human mind looks down railway tracks into the distance, the tracks seem to converge. That is an illusion, so the article was wrong to claim any set of parallel lines converges to infinity other than in the human mind.
Although the textbooks often throw out claims as if they are true, they never supply concrete evidence of the truth. They presume you’ll take their word for it.
Gordon moans:
Translation must apply to all motion, either on a straight line or a curve, it cannot be restricted in relation to curved paths in the same way it is applied on a linear path.
Every text book you will find, and all the kinematic lecture notes you will find all agree regarding translation. The object cannot change its orientation when translating. Those are the facts. It is just YOU who does not like the definition. You will have to write letters to every university in Canada and the USA explaining your displeasure with the definition of translation, and that is does not apply to objects moving along a curve.
Most object moving along a curve are not in translation mode. They are in rotational mode.
“According to your sci-fi logic, a merry-go-round with its perimeter locked in place by a locking device so it cannot turn, is still rotating because it is attached to the Earth, which is rotating.”
Two of the Spinners, in a previous discussion, actually did argue that everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating! Lol.
Some of them, like SGW, simply cannot grasp the concept of an object rotating about an external axis, but not about its own center of mass. It’s like they think if something is rotating about an external axis, that automatically means it is rotating about its own center of mass! There is no point talking to some of them.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/source.gif
There is no point talking to some of them.
Then shut the %$#& up.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/source.gif
There is no point talking to some of them.
In 1687 Newton revolutionized the age old kinematical approach to planetary and lunar motion by demonstrating in his Principia that this motion can be determined from a mathematical theory based on gravitational forces. Some years later (1702) he published a small booklet entitled Theory of the Moons Motion, for which the Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed provided him with the best data. Some of Newton’s explanations for the rules in TMM had been presented in the first edition of the Principia as well as subsequently in the second (1713) and third (1726) editions. Newton’s dynamical approach changed this part of astronomy from an intricate celestial geometry into a branch of gravitational physics.
Over the past centuries Newton’s lunar work has been received with immense admiration by those who have been able to understand the profound mathematical innovations in his theory.
https://tinyurl.com/Principia-Cohen-and-Whitman
Now, since a lunar day (the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis) is a month long [i.e., is equal to a lunar month, the periodic time of the moon’s revolution in its orbit], the same face of the moon will always very nearly look in the direction of the further focus of its orbit, and therefore will deviate from the earth on one side or the other according to the situation of that focus.
“With respect to the fixed stars…”
“…and therefore with respect to the fixed stars…”
Newton knew what he was talking about. He’s the one that proved that gravity produced the motion represented by a ball on a sting. One side always faces the center of the orbit.
“string”
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/source.gif
tyson snape…did not post…lost my place.
All 4 points I made are scientifically true and #1 was corroborated by Professor Beanie. He stated that the first part of the equation he presented represented translation for the sphere attached to the massless rod and that the second part represented rotation of the sphere.
For some unexplained reason, he presumed the sphere was rotating about its COM even though he declared it as being attached to the sphere. The two part equation he supplied is true only if the sphere is free to rotate about its axis while the rod/sphere combo is rotating about the rod’s axis.
In the example with the sphere fixed to the rod, the kinetic energy about the sphere COM = 0.
A better use of the equation would be a rod rotating around its COM as the COM translated around a circular orbit. Or even if the sphere in the example was replaced by a rotating rod attached to an axle at the end of the massless rod. However, in his naivete, Prof Beanie gave the rod no mass and created a situation that cannot exist in this universe. In other words, his calculations were purely theoretical and had no meaning. Textbooks are filled with such crap.
You have applied equations without thinking the problem through. You cannot apply equation of rotation about a COM to a sphere that is attached to a rod. It won’t turn. It can’t turn while the other end of the rod is attached to an axle. The only way it could turn about its COM is with the other end of the rod being free, then the entire unit could turn around a centre of mass like a boomerang.
Gordon laments:
You cannot apply equation of rotation about a COM to a sphere that is attached to a rod. It won’t turn.
The sphere will not turn wrt the rod. We get that, Gordon. We don’t measure the rotation of the sphere with respect to a rotating reference frame. That would be monumentally dumb. I explained all this with my ball on a string problem which is similar to the sphere/rod problem. Please refer to the bottom of page 3 of the following reference:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
The orange arbitrary figure will be replaced with a sphere. Point A is at the sphere’s center of mass. Point B is on the far outside edge of the sphere.
As the sphere performs an orbit, the position vector rB/A makes a 360 rotation around the sphere’s center of mass (Point A) wrt the x’-axis for every one orbit. The attached rod just rotates along with the sphere so there is no issue.
It’s that simple.
If you really had taken engineering courses that involved kinematics, you would understand this. Perhaps you were drunk or stoned when the professor gave the lectures on rigid body motion?
Gordon snorted:
All 4 points I made are scientifically true and #1 was corroborated by Professor Beanie. He stated that the first part of the equation he presented represented translation for the sphere attached to the massless rod and that the second part represented rotation of the sphere.
Let’s look at your points again:
1. The Moon is translating in its orbit.
2. Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
3. You will never see a calculation in kinematics related to a rigid body in which individual particles are considered.
4. No matter where it is located, the kinematics of an irregularly shaped body are related only to its COM.
Professor Beanie did not corroborate point #1. Do you really have to lie to prove a point? That is pretty desperate. In the video the professor stated:
we know that total kinetic energy can be thought of as the translational kinetic energy associated with the center of mass
He was very careful to refer to the COM. He never says anywhere that the sphere as a whole is translating. Shame on you for lying, Gordon.
Now let’s look at your second point:
2. Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
LMAO. That is SO wrong. How could an engineer make that kind of statement? Only a fake engineer could. If all particles of an object cover the same distance in the same time, that means they have the same velocity. But we know that a particle on the far side of the moon covers a longer distance in the same amount of time as a particle on the near side. Hello?! McFly!!! That means your statement is comically false!!!
I am not going to bother with your third and 4th statement, because I proved them wrong upthread.
skeptic…”2. Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
LMAO. That is SO wrong”.
****
Your problem is that you cannot accept rigid body theory. With a sphere like the Moon, the COM, or the geometric centre, is regarded as the point of reference. Based on that, none of the other particles matter and for all intents and purposes, they must complete an orbit in the same time as all the other particles.
Whether they do or not is immaterial. The geometric centre of a sphere is an average of the individual masses that make up a rigid body and its velocity is the average of all particle velocities. That’s all the matters with a rigid body. Your obsession with individual particles is misplaced.
You don’t get it that all particles must act together in a rigid body. When we think of an orbit, we are not talking of the orbital width created by the entire mass width, including all particles, we visualize the orbit of a single particle acting at the COM. That’s why basic orbital calculations are done from the centre of the Earth to the centre of the Moon.
We are not even concerned with the tangential velocity of the COM, we use the angular velocity of a radial line from Earth’s centre through that point at the Moon’s COM. The orbital velocity is based on that angular velocity, which determines the orbital velocity of each point along the radial line through the Moon. Every point along that radial line completes an orbit in the same time. By extension, each point on the Moon completes the orbit in the same time.
In your mind, an orbit is an infinite series of concentric circles/ellipses created by each particle in the Moon. In physics, for a rigid body like the Moon, an orbit is the path traced by a single particle at the Moon’s COM. That particle acts on behalf of all particles and the actual velocities of the other particles don’t matter a hoot.
In many posts I have acknowledged that outer orbit particles move faster than inner orbit particles but a rigid body’s motion is determined ONLY by the motion of the COM. That’s a fact in physics and the fact you are not aware of that fact reveals your lack of training in physics.
I have also used the imaginary infinite series of concentric orbits to emphasize that all particles making up the Moon are translating along parallel paths. With the stipulation that particles on the near face must also face the Earth at all times, that means all particles on the Moon are translating parallel to the inner face, completely ruling out the possibility of rotation about the Moon’s axis.
Gordon digs himself deeper in a hole by doubling down on his stupid and erroneous statement:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
The formula for tangential velocity is V=wr. Let r2 be the radius to a point on the far side edge of the moon, from the center or orbit. Let r1 be the radius to a point on the near side edge of the moon. r2 is greater than r1, therefore V2 is greater than V1. But Gordon says with his statement that every point on the moon has the same velocity. His statement is WRONG.
And why does Gordon continue with this nonsense?? Because since the far and near sides of the moon have different velocities, WE KNOW the moon is not undergoing curvilinear translation as Gordon claims, because all points on a translating object have the same velocities. So he continues with his lies claim the moon is undergoing curvilinear translation.
skeptic…”Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
The formula for tangential velocity is V=wr.”
***
The tangential velocity of any one particle is not important because it is connected to a mass of other particles moving as a rigid body. In fact, its tangential velocity is due to the motion of the entire body. No single particle in a rigid body can be analyzed independently of the rest.
I acknowledged in my last post and in several other posts that outer particles move at a different velocity than inner particles. That has no bearing on rigid body theory. It is only the angular velocity, based on the motion of the COM, that matters.
Gordon,
Whether YOU think the velocity of any point on a rigid body is unimportant is not the issue. The issue is your incorrect statement:
Every particle on the Moon covers the same distance in the same time.
That is wrong no matter how you look at it. All points on the moon DO NOT have the same velocity. They have the same angular velocity.
Since the velocity of a point on the far side of the moon is greater than the velocity for a point on the near side, this means the moon is NOT undergoing curvilinear translation as you claim. Translation requires that all points on a rigid body have the same velocity. That is not subject for debate. EVERY kinematic and physics reference source agrees on that requirement.
Stop with all the BS. You obviously never took an engineering class in your life otherwise you would understand this.
SGW STILL doesn’t understand orbital motion:
“All points on the moon DO NOT have the same velocity. They have the same angular velocity.”
That’s wrong. All points on Moon have the same instantaneous velocity, since it is undergoing pure orbital motion — translating, but not rotating about its axis.
It’s the same motion as a ball on a string, wooden horse on a MGR, or DREMT’s “chalk circle”.
Poor dumb ClintR. He has NEVER provided a calculation to prove his claim. Instead he thinks repeating himself, walking around trees, and staring at fans will make it come true.
Even Tesla stated with his Figure 5 that the balls were translating when the balls were unlocked and the shaded areas were always pointing down. So the same face of the balls DID NOT face the center of orbit like the moon. I guess Clint missed that part.
The “unlocked” spheres do not replicate orbital motion. That’s why the ball on a string is a much better model.
Give it up SGW. You’ll never understand the simple motions. Some people just don’t have certain skills and abilities. At least you can type.
skeptic…”The sphere does not turn independently of the rod. However, the position vectors motion is not measured wrt the rod. The position vectors (rB/A) motion, or orientation (change of position), is measured wrt the x axis”.
***
The velocity vector’s orientation changes, which explains how the Moon can keep the same face to the Earth while NOT rotating on its axis. It changes because gravity nudges the Moon into an orbit.
The velocity vector to which you refer is not a rotating vector with respect to the sphere COM. It is a vector of the entire unit, rod + sphere, and indicates the instantaneous change of position (translation) of the unit.
Prof Beanie messed up by making the rod massless and moving the COM to the geometric centre of the sphere.
As usual Gordon does not understand what I posted and does not understand what a position vector is. Again. Please refer to the figure at the bottom of page 3 for the following reference:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
Pay attention this time, Gordon. The orange rigid body shown will be replaced with a sphere. Point A will be at the sphere’s center of mass. Get it? Point B will be at the far outside edge of the sphere.
Gordon demonstrates his complete ignorance with the following statement:
The velocity vector to which you refer is not a rotating vector with respect to the sphere COM.
I did not refer to a velocity vector. I referred to a position vector. Do you even know what a position vector is?? Apparently not. Look it up on Wikipedia to educate yourself.
Gordon continues with his ignorance:
It is a vector of the entire unit, rod + sphere, and indicates the instantaneous change of position (translation) of the unit.
No Gordon, the position vector refers to the location of Point B on the outside edge of the sphere, with the origin of the vector being at the COM of the sphere (Point A) The position vector rB/A has nothing to do with the rod.
The position vector makes a 360 degree rotation about the sphere’s COM for every one orbit, i.e., the sphere is rotating about its own axis.
The sphere is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as ftop_t proved upthread.
ftop_t’s proof has been demonstrated faulty DREMT, appears that is beyond DREMT’s physics understanding.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
SGW, you’re still confused about the simple motions. You believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis. Your belief is based on “appearance”. Your belief is so strong that you will ignore reality.
In debunking your MSU Beanie guy, I used the example of a large floor fan. Looking at the fan from the front, you would see the fan blades rotating CCW. But looking into the fan from the other side, you would see the blades rotating CW. So, if you go with your “belief-based-on-appearance”, the fan is not turning since the two opposite motions cancel out! Send us a video of you sticking your head in the fan while someone turns it on.
Looking into the fan from the other side, you would see the blades rotating CW but only if you used a different clock. Using the same clock as the front, that clock would also appear to be rotating same direction as the fan from the back.
9:08am is just another magic trick by Clint R who must avoid reality and use magic.
Thanks Ball4, but we already know you do not understand the motions.
More magic and illusion from Clint R to maintain entertainment.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ClintR’s rigid proofs consist of walking around trees and gazing at fans. But never a calculation involving math.
Gordon rubs two coins together, and DREMT yelps out his slogans.
Quite an impressive bunch.
There’s no math needed to understand the simple motions, SGW.
You idiots have to learn the simple things first. You can’t even understand walking around a tree. You shouldn’t be around floor fans without adult supervision.
They’re “slogans” in the same way that saying 2+2=4 is a “slogan”. It’s a fact you stupid moron.
skeptic…”But never a calculation involving math”.
Physics, David Bohm, one of the top ranked physicists of the 20th century said it best. An equation with no physical reality to back it is garbage.
skeptic…from your link…
“we write
vB= vA x (w x rB/A)
where w is the angular velocity of the body at the instant considered.
They are clearly talking about a rigid body that is translating while rotating. The Moon is a translating rigid body but it has no angular velocity, w (omega), about its local axis. You won’t find a reference to any such a local angular velocity in any calculation.
You are confusing a change in orientation due to translation with a local angular velocity about the Moon’s local axis. The change in orientation is not rotation.
Gordon moans:
The Moon is a translating rigid body
Totally wrong. Per every reference source you will find, all points of a translating body have the same velocity. A point on the far and near sides of the moon have different velocities, therefor the moon is not translating.
Gordon yelps:
The Moon is a translating rigid body but it has no angular velocity, w (omega), about its local axis. You wont find a reference to any such a local angular velocity in any calculation.
Wrong! The angular velocity vector for w, shown in green, has its origin at A, which is at the sphere’s center of mass. That’s the local axis.
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/me143/4.Three%20Dimensional%20Mechanisms/4_0_Review3D%20Dynamics_notes.pdf
SGW will never understand. He can’t understand the simplest motions.
He must live in Michigan….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191
Hiwould 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.
…
NASA’s website today says:
Q: Does the Moon rotate?
A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
Another non-spinner debunks himself.
Who to trust, NASA or the DREM team?
…and that really is the extent of Svante’s thought processes.
That’s why this Moon issue is so fascinating. It’s not that hard to understand. It does not require years of education. It’s as simple as a ball on a string.
Yet people that cannot think for themselves cling to it. It’s the cult-thing. Pass the koolaid.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard P. Feynman
Exactly Snape. You only fool yourself when you find things on the Internet that you believe will make you look smart.
Clint yelps:
Yet people that cannot think for themselves cling to it.
That is HILARIOUS! The non-spinners let Tesla do all the thinking for them. They don’t have an an original bone in their body. They only spew the slogans of Tesla.
https://giphy.com/gifs/DNCE-3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k
Clint can’t even solve a simple velocity equation to prove his stupid claims. That is how dumb these clowns are.
Gordon moans:
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.
First thing NASA would do if they EVER respond to Gordon is to correct Gordon on the issue of curvilinear translation. The moon is not translating.
Did Gordon forget to mention the two-coin experiment in his letter to NASA? Or how about ClintR’s staggering drunk around a tree proof? Big mistake if you ask me? LMAO.
Sorry for your loss.
SkepticGoneWild 1:12 AM, I’m LMFAO imagining Tesla’s Figure 5 contraption on the motor seen in Svante’s video posted here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-580638
Good times!
Yes, you rarely have a point but are easily amused.
SGW demonstrates his cult behavior, again.
He can type forever without saying anything relevant. He has to deny the links he finds. He refuses to accept the Cornell U definition that excludes orbital motion. He refuses to recognize that Beanie got it terrible wrong. SGW can’t understand physics, so he can’t understand when someone is creating energy out of nothing. He doesn’t understand motions, at all.
He shouldn’t be allowed around fans, lawnmowers, or anything dangerously rotating, without adult supervision.
Isaac Newton:
Now, since a lunar day (the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis) is a month long [i.e., is equal to a lunar month, the periodic time of the moon’s revolution in its orbit], the same face of the moon will always very nearly look in the direction of the further focus of its orbit, and therefore will deviate from the earth on one side or the other according to the situation of that focus.
NASA:
The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
We always see the same old side of the moon because the moon rotates exactly once on its axis each time it orbits Earth. If it weren’t spinning at all, we’d get at least one 360-degree view of its surface with each lap. If it were spinning twice as fast, we’d also see the moon’s entire surface more than once per orbit. But instead, our moon’s motions, like the spin and orbit of most other moons in our solar system, are remarkably in perfect sync.
Non-spinner ethos, i.e. encyclopedia lunatica:
That’s why this Moon issue is so fascinating. It’s not that hard to understand. It does not require years of education. It’s as simple as a ball on a string.
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.
Being tidally-locked is the same thing as having a rigid member running from the Earth’s surface and connected to the Moon.
Bottom line kids: stay in school, don’t be a fool!
Blah, blah, blah.
Snape probably spent all day composing that irrelevant nonsense.
Oh well, he had nothing else to do anyway….
ClintR yelps:
That’s why this Moon issue is so fascinating. It’s not that hard to understand. It does not require years of education.
Clint nails it. The more stupid you are, the better you understand it, as the non-spinners prove. All you need are two coins and find a tree to stagger drunk around. Presto! Bolding text and the yelping of slogans helps as well:
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation!!
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation!!
Maybe if DREMT’s slogans rhymed it might help?
Facts are facts. Calling them slogans will not change that.
Tonto the Clown 5:40 PM, it’s called cut-and-paste and it only takes 2 minutes.
So it was a lazy and pointless comment.
MikeR says:
Yes, DREMt’s simpleton Moon model works for rigid bodies.
But physics is about accurately modelling reality.
The breaking record experiment shows each part rotating on its own axis when the record breaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-DTjpde9-0
So are those rotations created from the original rotation when the record breaks? How?
The simple answer is that it was there all the time. Translation plus rotation models nature better.
“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.”
Svante 3:26 AM
Thanks for the, most excellent, video demonstration of conservation of angular momentum. Not unlike in the solar system, it demonstrates how everything in it not only spins, but spins in the same direction [counterclockwise] except for Venus and Uranus of course.
TYSON MCGUFFIN, I think bdgwx referenced it first:
https://tinyurl.com/ycolgsor
ClintR responded:
So the laws of physics are different in this case : – )
This is another good example of trolls needing to make a comment, but not having a clue about the subject.
Silly snowflake Svante would be hard pressed to explain how the laws of physics are different.
That’s why he’s an idiot.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“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.”
Just like the Moon.
The moon has not been “thrown off”. You are confused, Svante.
But it has different tangential velocities, so this is false:
ClintR says:
Svante, you don’t understand physics, and you can’t learn.
The record pieces have angular momentum after the break-up because they have angular momentum BEFORE the break up. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.
The record was mechanically attached before brake-up. Moon is NOT mechanically attached to Earth. Moon has ZERO angular momentum.
Earth’s Moon has ZERO angular momentum in a certain accelerating frame where ClintR reveals its location and positive angular momentum in a the inertial frame. This is the source of DREMT and ClintR’s et. al. moon rotation confusion: they never reveal their observational coordinates.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552711
Today would be a good day for Tonto the clown, a.k.a. ClintR. to release his debunking of tidal locking.
It’s been 1 1/2 months since he made his clownish promise to “debunk that nonsense in a few days” and all he’s produced so far is some childish nonsense about hammers and feathers which, though admittedly very funny, only strengthens the case in favor of tidal locking.
What a good idea, Snape. Tidal locking is easily debunked.
For those that haven’t seen 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.
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 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 easily 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.
Yep, mass concentrations are exactly the reason the Moon is tidally locked in the Earths gravitational field.
https://tinyurl.com/Tidal-locking
https://tinyurl.com/Hammers-and-feathers
Read a book little buddy.
Snape, even if you choose to believe in “tidal locking”, you just end up back at the ball on a string, which is definitely “locked” by the string.
Keep searching for things on the Internet you don’t understand. That just shows how little you understand about physics.
Reality always wins, which means you idiots are always losers.
The ball on a string, which is definitely “locked” into one rotation on ball’s own axis per orbit by the string.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Clint R 10:41 AM
Keep searching for things on the Internet you don’t understand. That just shows how little you understand about physics.
Tonto the Clown, I must admit, you are the first person I’ve come across that did not grow up with an Encyclopedia Britannica in the Father House.
If the internet is your go-to for knowledge, then it’s no wonder you’re so screwed up!
I’ll say it again, Read a book little buddy.
Blah, blah, blah.
Ball4 10:59 AM
Yes, you are absolutely correct. All we’re seeing here is the non-spinners wanting to play both sides of the court and that’s gotten them so confused they’re starting to argue against one another. Some of them say yeah to tidal locking while another says nah.
Entertaining!
No, Ball4 is not correct. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Quite a few of the Spinners now accept that this is one way of describing the motion of a ball on a string. I guess you are not one of them?
Yes, Tyson, when DREMT writes “The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.” simply reveals the location of DREMT’s observation. Over time one can learn what the DREMT’s writing really means – as MikeR’s Chief cfc.
MikeR is one of those Spinners who accepts that the motion of a ball on a string can be described that way. He even said Ball4 would not disagree. But we can see that Ball4 does disagree.
Tesla confirmed the fact that the scientific consensus of his day was that the ball on a string rotated on its own axis.
That has not changed.
All Tesla did was write an article in a magazine stating his hypothesis, which was flawed. He never followed the tenets of the scientific method to confirm his hypothesis, and nobody took him seriously.
Tesla was a great mind, both brilliant and hard working. A super-achiever. He invented many things. The unit for magnetic flux density is named after him — “Tesla”.
But you don’t need Tesla to debunk Moon rotation. You kiddies can denigrate all you want, but you can’t change reality.
Trying to change reality is why you’re idiots.
Says the clown who can’t even perform a simple velocity calculation to back up his nonsense claim.
SGW is just another "fixed axis rotation" denier.
SkepticGoneWild 2:24 PM
Tesla excelled at scientific spectacle. Reading newspaper stories about him from the 1890s onward many stories started by saying how honored the journalist was to have been allowed an interview with the reclusive Mr. Tesla. In newspaper interviews and in magazine articles, Tesla portrayed himself as the eccentric outsider, someone who refused to play by the rules and who would single-handedly transform the future. What we think we know about him is the product of that kind of self-presentation and self-promotion.
That insidious image still haunts the way we think about science and technology today. It feeds the view that scientific and technological advancements come from the inspiration of powerful and iconoclastic individuals rather than the hard work of many.
Tesla’s polyphase induction motor, which he invented near the beginning of his career and sold to Westinghouse in 1888, truly was revolutionary. His articles in The Electrical Experimenter of 1919 though, were misguided at best and as you say, unscientific.
OK, Tyson McGuffin.
Tesla was also honored by using his name for Elon Musk’s company and car.
Beyond all of Tesla’s extremely important inventions, he also left us with some cool toys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8skz484Ctk
I have not following closely the comments in this particular thread due to my policy of not dealing with more than one idiot at a time.
I seem to have been mentioned in the dispatches here with regard to the ball on string analogy and in particular some apparent conflict with Ball4.
However as I have not had the time to check everyone of Ball’s comments over the past few years I am not sure if any my comments are significantly at variance with Ball4’s comments.
If they are at variance , they may have been taken out of context and/or I may have been semantically confused or simply wrong*.
Despite the ball on string being wildly inappropriate as an analogy to the Earth/Moon , my description is as follows-
The ball is rotating on its axis as it orbits , and its motion fits the definition of general plane motion, as the outer and inner points move af different speeds . The outer points and inner points transcribe concentric circles that have different radii and hence different perimeters – see N = 1 in this depiction.
https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
This is similar to rolling motion, where the point of contact of the wheel with the ground is momentarily stationary , while at the same moment, the opposite side moves twice as fast as the centre of the wheel.
This general plane motion for the ball can accordingly be decomposed into 1. rotation of the centre of mass of the ball about a fixed axis plus 2. pure rotation of the ball about an axis through its centre of mass.
Of course the fact that the ball is rotating on its axis is also easily proved by physics.
To illustrate this, here is another of my infamous depictions.
https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif
Case A and B both correspond to dumbbells revolving attached to a string, so only one end faces the centre of rotation during the orbit. The string breaks and the dumbbell then flies off tangentially across the screen.
The non-rotators believe for both cases the dumbbell is not rotating on its axis, and when the string breaks, some (with one obvious exception) believe the dumbbell proceeds on without rotating, as in case B.
In contrast, physicists believe that both dumbbells are rotating on their axes while constrained and the dumbbell, in case A, will then continue to rotate on its axis after the string breaks due to conservation of angular momentum* ( and of course, conservation of energy).
To confirm this, the AstroAcademy video used to teach the physics of rotation below, provides a convincing practical demonstration of the conservation of angular momentum-
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Here is the relevant maths and physics.
For the following –
w is the angular velocity, R is the orbital radius of the centre of mass , I is the moment of inertia and V cm is the velocity of the centre of mass.
1. From Conservation of Energy
while rotating
E tot = 1/2 m. R ^2. w^2 + 1/2 I.w^2 ( eqn. 1 )
after the string breaks
E tot = 1/2 m. Vcm^2 + 1/2 I.w^2 ( eqn. 2 )
2. From Conservation of Linear Momentum for the Centre of Mass
m.Vcm = m. R. w (eqn. 3 )
The velocity of the centre of mass after the string breaks is the same as it is while orbiting.
3. From Conservation of Angular Momentum
while orbiting –
L tot= L orb + L rot ( eqn. 4 )
L orb = m.(Vcm X R) = m.Vcm .R = m. R w ^2 (as Vcm = R.w) ( eqn. 5 )
L tot = m. R w ^2 + I . w ( eqn. 6 )
while moving tangentially –
L tot = m . Vcm . R sin ( theta) + I. w ( eqn. 7 )
theta is the angle between the centre of mass and the object as it moves it tangentially ( simple geometry demonstrates that the term R. sin(theta) = constant).
The only solution, that is not mathenatically and physically nonsensical**, is that the dumbbell is rotating on it’s axis while it is orbiting as I.w is not equal to zero. QED.
* on at least one or two occasions, my comments have been wrong. It is a sign of emotional maturity to admit and correct mistakes and move on. Unfortunately I have never seen evidence that any members of the team of contrarian fruit cakes have this level of maturity. When confronted with the errors of their ways they act like little children and dumbly double down.
** this is DREM’s mathematically illiterate piece of nonsense- “We already know that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved, so that orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum is nothing untoward”.
“This general plane motion for the ball can accordingly be decomposed into 1. rotation of the centre of mass of the ball about a fixed axis plus 2. pure rotation of the ball about an axis through its centre of mass.”
No. General plane motion is a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. So you are wrong.
You have two options to describe the motion of the ball on a string.
1) A rotation of the ball about a fixed axis. This is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
2) A translation of the center of mass of the ball plus a rotation about that center of mass.
Wow, did MikeR just set a record for non-stop random-walk?
And quoting from DREMT:
“You have two options to describe the motion of the ball on a string.
1) A rotation of the ball about a fixed axis. This is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
2) A translation of the center of mass of the ball plus a rotation about that center of mass.”
We know the answer is 1, because if the ball were rotating about its axis the string would wrap up.
But that won’t stop MikeR from going for a new world record….
In reality, we know the answer, because if the ball were rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, then the string would wrap up. ClintR can not deal with reality.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ok, dealing with more than one idiot at a time, is time consuming, so apologies for the length of my comment which is well beyond the attention span of any of the fruit cakes.
DREM ,you really are struggling. Rotation of the centre of mass (which is a single point at the centre of the object) is also a translation, in any sense of the word *, as all points (i.e. one) move at the same speed!
* see the following,
https://www.g9toengineering.com/resources/translational.htm
and
https://physicscatalyst.com/article/translational-motion/
and of course
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
Lol.
You have two options to describe the motion of the ball on a string.
1) A rotation of the ball about a fixed axis. This is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
2) A translation of the center of mass of the ball plus a rotation about that center of mass.
As ClintR explained:
Kinematics doesn’t work with orbital motion
So why are non-spinners trying to use kinematics to prove their point?? Telsa was confused with kinematics as well since he used both the inertial reference frame and a rotating reference frame in the same instance.
This is why no one took him serious regarding the moon rotation issue, and why he never sought to publish his work in a scientific journal whereby his work would be scrutinized by the scientific community via the scientific method.
I already proved the ball on a string rotates on its own axis by using standard velocity equations for any rigid body. Professor Beanie did the same thing with the rod/sphere problem.
Non-spinners are confused by kinematics, which is why they resort to goofball proofs such as two coins, stumbling drunk around trees, staring at floor fans, and yelping Tesla slogans.
SGW, why do you always deny the existence of Option 1)?
Because:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-581091
Upthread, MikeR said:
“My statement that a simple single rotation can be described as a simple single rotation is not disputed by anybody. This is true for a single point. Likewise for an object, such as a triangle, the single rotation as Ftop has demonstrated, will mean the orientation of the triangle will be fixed with respect to the centre of rotation. Absolutely no one is disputing this and I cannot see how anyone could distort Ball4’s comments to suggest otherwise.”
Absolutely no one is disputing this…besides Ball4, SGW, Tyson McGuffin, etc etc…
The Michigan State University Beanie video has already been debunked. But, let’s have some more fun.
Beanie believes the sphere is rotating about its axis, because it “appears” to be. That’s a tragic mistake in physics, expecially in the real world. Some idiot could determine that a lawnmower blade was not turning because from the bottom it “appeared” to be rotating CW, but viewed from the top, it “appeared’ to be rotating CCW. Since it cannot be turning in opposite directions at the same time, it is obviously not turning, so it’s okay for the idiot to stick his hand in.
Beanie claims the non-rotating sphere has two energies–translational and rotational. What would he “calculate” for the energies if the sphere were actually rotating?
(Someone from Michigan should contact their State Rep. and ask to defund the MSU physics dept. They’re going to kill someone.)
If all those intelligent people , such as, SGW, Tyson McGuffin, etc etc believe it is impossible (context* please) then I must be wrong! 😅
However Ftop claims he can , by rotating each vertices of the triangle , make the triangle rotate to keep a fixed orientation with respect to the centre of rotation . Who am I to disbelieve him? DREM do you disbelieve him? Shame on you if you do!
What I totally disbelieve, is the claim by the clowns that it cannot also be done with more than one rotation and/ or translation !!!!
I am positive that the intelligent people share my disbelief, as distinct from the the dumb f…s who will believe anything.
* DREM is adept at two things only, misquoting and taking things totally out of context.
Make it five , I forgot about evasions, replying with repetitive evidence free assertions and trolling via PSTs. This is all part of the package that makes DREM such a fun guy.
“However Ftop claims he can , by rotating each vertices of the triangle , make the triangle rotate to keep a fixed orientation with respect to the centre of rotation . Who am I to disbelieve him? DREM do you disbelieve him? Shame on you if you do!”
Ftop_t has shown that by rotating the triangle about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, the same face remains oriented towards the center of revolution.
“What I totally disbelieve, is the claim by the clowns that it cannot also be done with more than one rotation and/ or translation !!!!”
It cannot be done with two rotations. If you rotate the triangle about an internal and an external axis, the triangle shows all of its sides to the center of revolution. As ftop_t has also shown.
“I am positive that the intelligent people share my disbelief, as distinct from the the dumb f…s who will believe anything”
Oh dear. MikeR resorts to insults.
“DREM is adept at two things only, misquoting and taking things totally out of context.”
…and now false accusations.
“Make it five , I forgot about evasions, replying with repetitive evidence free assertions and trolling via PSTs. This is all part of the package that makes DREM such a fun guy.”
More false accusations.
DREM, this is like taking candy from a baby. I can do it in 2 rotations exactly , as you describe , via an external and internal axis*.
However it will require a small fee, payable to my Nigerian friend, who has an amazing business deal that might interest you.
* hint – how do you think these depictions were created?
For a triangle-
https://i.postimg.cc/qRMPFBtg/Rotating-Triangle-N-1.gif
and Ftop can likewise do it.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qzzlfflonx
and similarly for the “moon”.
https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
p.s. DREM, I would never swear unnecessarily. The four letter word starting with the letter “f” in my last comment was fool. What did you think it was, d..k face?
By the way which troll was responsible for 60 PSTs so far this month?
No, MikeR. This is from ftop_t:
“Adding a little more features to this graphic calculator view:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
I have two separate rotational values
r = rotation speed around the origin
s = rotation speed around the internal axis
With these separate values. Anyone can to go to line 29 and alter the rotation speed of the internal axis.
Initially, s = r since the counter argument is that the rotation around the external axis and the rotation of the internal axis are synchronized. As demonstrated above, all points of the triangle would point inward at some distance on the orbit
Setting s = 0, the orbiting triangle keeps the same point facing the origin (my argument that the object has one rotation around an external axis
Setting s = -r, the orbiting triangle has to rotate at a negative rate equal to the orbital rate to keep the same point of the triangle on the top
Setting s = 365r would model the earth rotating around the sun. Don’t get dizzy.”
When you have s=r, all sides of the triangle point towards the external axis at some point during the orbit. Set s=0 rotations per orbit and the same side of the triangle points towards the external axis throughout the orbit. Proving you wrong.
MikeR 7:06 PM I too subscribe to your policy of not dealing with more than one idiot at a time but these non-spinners flock together, bungled and botched, like birds of a feather.
Their appeal to Tesla’s authority failed miserably since “the great Engineer” wasn’t able to prove his hypothesis. In the end he could only claim that “angular motion is an illusion,” and “but the truth will appear upon a closer examination” without ever providing a Mathematical proof. The great Engineer fails the MLM(Model-Laws-Math) test.
You are correct that all the intelligent folks understand that:
Although the Moon appears to have no rotation, it must, in fact, rotate once per revolution in order to keep the same face toward the Earth.
I’m not sure if this video has been posted here before, but it explains it nicely and poses interesting questions for further discussion among the intelligent adults,
https://tinyurl.com/Motion-of-the-Moon
P.S: to use ftop_t’s desmos link, click on the circle in line 31 to activate “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting”, then move the slider or press play on line 1. Edit line 29 to change the s=r setting.
This is why this issue is so much fun. Snape found another video he can’t understand. And, we have a new “Beanie”. This idiot has a yellow bow tie even! Too much fun.
“Bowtie” reveals why Moon rotation and tidal locking nonsense is so important to the cult. They use it to support the already-debunked “Giant Impact” nonsense. Even NASA now rejects that.
Even funnier, “Bowtie”, at 3:30, states Moon is “no longer rotating”!
See if you can find some more funny videos, Snape.
Clint R 9:56 AM
Another tactic of the bungled and botched non-spinners is to be deliberately untruthful.
The video says: “the moon’s rotation is exactly in sink with the Moon’s orbit
https://tinyurl.com/Tonto-clown-and-liar
Tonto turns it into: at 3:30, states Moon is “no longer rotating”
At the very least, argue the message, why deceive?
The specific discussion begins at 3:30. The exact statement occurs about 3:50.
Snape could not figure it out.
That’s why he’s an idiot.
Clint R 10:34 AM
You are not very good at context are you? You can’t even follow a discussion for more than 10 seconds.
I’ll say it again, argue the message, no need to deceive.
The “message” is that your “Bowtie” doesn’t have a clue, just like you Snape.
He’s pushing a “guess” as to how Moon got here that is no longer considered valid. He pushes “tidal locking” that violates the laws of physics. He obviously has never studied orbital motion. He’s obviously confused about whether Moon is rotating or not.
Anxiously awaiting your next funny video.
Clint R 11:27 AM
Wrong again! So I’ll give you the answer.
The message is that you can’t argue against tidal locking as the cause of the Moon’s present 1:1 spin-orbit state of motion, or a hypothesis as to how it became so. You thus attempt to deceive and deflect for unknown reasons. No surprise there of course.
Clint R 11:27 AM Anxiously awaiting your next funny video.
Ask and ye shall receive:
You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie! https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
Why is ClintR even in this discussion??
ClintR is such a clown:
1. He can’t perform a simple velocity calculation to prove his dumba** assertion that every point on the moon has the same velocity.
2. His stupid comment regarding fans proves he has no concept of inertial reference frames, or reference frames in general, just like Tesla. Tesla in his Figure 5 used an inertial reference frame AND a rotating reference frame attached to the rotating arm of his device! So, if his device had happened to be a fan, Tesla jumped on the moving blade of the fan to measure rotations wrt the fan blade. How brilliant is that??
3. His rigorous proof of orbital motion consists of stumbling drunk around a tree!
4. Pot calling kettle black. He insists the rest of the world is a cult, while the 4 of them are mainstream! LMAO. Delusional
You have two options to describe the motion of the ball on a string.
1) A rotation of the ball about a fixed axis. This is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
2) A translation of the center of mass of the ball plus a rotation about that center of mass.
SGW, why do you pretend that Option 1) does not exist?
Because:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-581091
I asked SGW.
Snape and SGW, trying to save your cult beliefs by cobbling together broken pieces of things that have been long shattered is funny.
All of your nonsense is debunked by physics, Galileo, Newton, and the Astronaut’s demonstration. Not to mention the ball-on-a-string, an experiment you could easily do yourselves, if you weren’t idiots. (One of your idiot cult members didn’t even know how to walk around a tree!)
You have nothing except your broken beliefs.
But finding videos, that you believe in, makes it all worthwhile.
How about some more funny ones?
Newly minted video for Tonto the clown who seems to enjoy that sort of thing!
https://tinyurl.com/Flat-Earth-Friday
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Clint R 4:02 PM
Here’s one more for you, https://tinyurl.com/DERP-non-spinners
Snape, the Flat-Earth nonsense is a pretty good analogy to you idiots believing in Moon-rotation. Flat-Earth is a cult, just like Moon-rotation is a cult. Neither can hold up to science.
The only difference is which nonsense NASA believes in. You idiots will go with NASA, since you don’t understand the science. When NASA finally corrects the nonsense, you, SGW, ball4, MikeR, and the rest will simply change your position, claiming you never supported the Moon rotating nonsense. You can just change your screen name again!
ClintR,
Like yourself, I am anxiously waiting for NASA to change its position with regard to the rotation of the Moon.
NASA must be considering accelerating their moon shot program so they can remove the laser retroreflectors on the surface of the Moon. These must have been faulty from day one (well over 40 years ago) as they measure the Moon’s rotation on a continuing basis.
p.s. Clint, you really are determined to take out this month’s fruit cake award. Poor DREM is trailling badly, but once again, will take the “lucky loser” PST trolling award.
The reflectors left on Moon always face Earth, indicting Moon is not rotating about its axis.
The reflectors left on Moon always face Earth, indicting Moon is not rotating about its axis in its frame and observers standing next to the reflectors such as ClintR and DREMT observe the sun rotating about the moon causing lunar day/night cycles.
ClintR rejects reality and will write anything to pervert reality.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT’s PST comments without evidence simply mean in reality: “DREMT thanks the commenter for pointing out a DREMT comment is faulty while DREMT will still avoid reality in future comments”.
No Ball4, you really are a troll.
Lol! Because:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582633
Many have described you as a troll, Ball4. They are correct.
Actually Clint, the retroreflectors rarely point exactly at the Earth ,as the Earth is wandering about the lunar sky, due to libration.
This is one of the reasons* why retroreflectors are used rather than simple mirrors.
* also the Earth subtends an angle of about 2 degrees at the Moons surface,
None of which affects the point ClintR made.
ClintR – “The reflectors left on Moon always face Earth, indicting Moon is not rotating about its axis.”
Why can the circular arguments of the clowns always be distilled down to the following?
The moon does not rotate because we see only one side of the moon, and we only see one side of the moon because the moon does not rotate.
Why does MikeR always misrepresent others?
Sorry DREM, but Ftop’s desmos version thay you linked to, appeared to have a problem with respect to his relationship ( s = r ) for his orbiting and rotating option, as that triangle is rotating at twice the rate of the triangle rotating on its axis (i.e. s = 2r).
I had a look at his code which, at first glance, appears ok*.
The problem is his definition of s which appears to be defined in terms of the orbiting frame that is already rotating at r.
So with respect to the fixed reference frame of the screen and Cartesian axes, s’ = 2r where s’ is the rotation w.r.t. to the inertial frame.
To clarify further, s’ = s + r so for the fixed (w.r.t. to the centre of the orbit) orientation triangle , s = 0 and s’ = r .
* assuming I have time during thus holiday season , I might have a more detailed look at his code to see whether his definition of his parameter s is explicitly , or just implicitly, embedded in his equations.
You really have not progressed one iota in understanding. It’s quite comical.
https://imgur.com/C5yLQOW
Sigh.
Si?
Your “r” is a translation of the center of mass of the triangle in a circle, with the origin in the middle of the circle.
Ftop_t’s “r” is the entire triangle rotating about the origin.
No DREM, all my points of the triangle are rotating about the origin as per Ftop, see the dashed lines –
https://i.postimg.cc/N0m031cX/Fruit-Cakes2.gif
Note each fruit cake is also rotating about the fruit cake centre of mass.
Yes, when your s=r. Obviously. But when ftop_t’s s=r, all sides of the triangle face the center of revolution at some point in the orbit.
Look, don’t worry about it…you haven’t understood, and you never will.
I have addressed Ftop’s physics free confusion up stream.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582401
You haven’t understood, and you never will.
Yes DREM, I don’t understand, so you will have to explain it to me.
This your golden opportunity.
So DREM, as you linked to Ftop’s desmos calculations, you must fully understand the underlying mathematics*. Accordingly can you explain, in detail, the full derivation of his formula for the orbiting and rotating triangle, in the following?
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zgfyccqfcs
In particular can you explain the equations in the tables in lines 30 and 33 and the equations in lines 31 and 34.
Also while you are at it, can you explain when s is set to zero in line 29, the triangle changes shape as it orbits (even when the x and y are scales are isometric)?
* if DREM quotes Ftop without understanding the details, then his status as a bloviating blowhard is, yet again, confirmed.
Wrong link, MikeR.
Try setting s=0 on this one:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
Good, Ftop must have fixed it
So DREM, as you linked to Ftops desmos calculations, you must fully understand the underlying mathematics*.
Accordingly can you explain , in detail, the full of derivation of his formulae for the orbiting and rotating triangle in the following?
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
In particular can you explain the equations in the tables in lines 30 and 33 and the equations in lines 31 and 34.
* if DREM quotes Ftop without understanding the details, then his status as a bloviating blowhard is, yet again, confirmed.
For this version, can you explain the full of derivation of his formula for the orbiting and rotating triangle in the following?
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
In particular can you explain the equations in the tables in lines 30 and 33 and the equations in lines 31 and 34.
* if DREM quotes Ftop without understanding the details, then his status as a bloviating blowhard is, yet again, confirmed.
Sorry about the accidental repetition above.
However DREM’s avoidance of the substantive part of the previous question is worth repeating.
So DREM, go for it. Your status depends on it. Let’s see your full derivation of Ftop’s equations. 😄
“Good, Ftop must have fixed it”
Lol. What I linked to was his original version. God knows what version you created and tried to pass off as ftop_t’s. Why would you do something so dishonest?
Oh, I see where you got it from. The comment before the one in which he actually provided the version where you can change the s=r setting. Wow, that’s low, MikeR. Even for you.
As to the equations…I would love to help you out, but I’m washing my hair. Why don’t you ask ftop_t? He said he would be happy to help you out if you didn’t understand them.
DREM,
There are so many versions of Ftop’s desmos ( I stopped counting at 20) that I used the first one where he had s = r. It looks like that version was totally bjorked.
Unfortunately Ftop seems to go periodically missing, and as your mathematical expertise is world renowned, I was hoping you could take us through the formal derivation of Ftop’s equations.
Accordingly, how long is it going to take for you to finish washing your hair? I can normally complete the task in 5 to 10 minutes at most. Maybe you have extraordinarily long pubes.
So anxiously anticipating your detailed explanation of the derivation of Ftop’s equations.😂
Show us your mettle, DREM. No more b.s..
Lets start with baby steps, see if you can write,in your own words, even a single equation* that makes sense. We can proceed from there.
Look, ftop_t is commenting down here, now. You can just scroll down-thread and ask him directly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-586173
Proof that Tesla’s Figure 5 balls rotate on their own axes when pivots are locked:
We will put some dimensions on his device so we can calculate actual velocities.
Let the spoke length from the origin to the COM for the balls equals 9 m.
Diameter of balls = 2 m
arm rotation = w = 1 rad/s CW
We are going to approach the solution in three stages:
Stage 1: Unlocked pivots free to rotate on frictionless bearings.
The system is imparted with an angular velocity of 1 rad/s CW. The COM (Point A) of the ball will have a tangential velocity of 9 m/s CW. I’ll be using the standard velocity equations for two points on any rigid body:
V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A) = V(A) + rB/Aw
Point B will be on the far outside edge of the ball. Since w for the ball is zero, V(B) = V(A) = 9 m/s. That was to be expected since as Tesla indicated: The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity. The shaded portion of the ball would always be facing down.
It should be noted that an observer standing on the rotating arm would observe the ball rotating 1 rad/s CCW about the pivot bearings.
Stage 2: Impart an angular velocity of 1 rad/s CW on the ball about its own axis, along with the system angular velocity of 1 rad/s CW.
As noted above, V(A) = 9 m/s. V(B/A) = 1 m(1 rad/s) = 1 m/s.
Therefore, V(B) = 9 m/s + 1 m/s = 10 m/s.
An observer standing on the rotating arm would observe no rotation of the ball about the pivot bearings, and the shaded part of the ball would always face the center of orbit.
Stage 3: Lock the pivots.
Locking the pivots will essentially be the same as Stage 2 since the ball does not rotate wrt the pivot bearings. Therefore as with Stage 2, the ball rotates about its own axis at a rate of 1 rad/s, and the shaded portion of the ball will always face the center of orbit. You can calculate the velocities easily just using the v=rw formula. V(B)=10 m(1 rad/s)=10 m/s. V(A)=9 m(1 rad/s)=9 m/s. Same as Stage 2. Check.
This was proved for the ball on a string as well upthread. Professor Beanie came to the same conclusion.
I will say this ahead of time for you non-spinners. You havent understood, and you never will.
With the pivots locked, the balls are merely rotating about a fixed, central axis, external to the balls. They are not rotating about their own centers of mass. See upthread for ftop_t’s proof.
Tesla demonstrated the “fixt” balls are indeed rotating about their own axis and ftop_t was proved to have bungled the desmos program using ftop_t’s own words. DREMT rejects reality.
Lol.
SGW fools himself, again.
He probably believes he can turn one dollar into a billion dollars, simply with math.
$1 X 1,000,000,000 = $1 billion
Some folks are just natural-born fools.
Ftop_t’s bungled “proof” is another reason why we don’t let Mathematicians/Programmers design our bridges or practice Engineering in general; knowing the Physics is key and that comes with a lot of brain sweat.
He obviously meets the prerequisites to study Engineering so I’d point him to Professor Vandiver’s lecture here https://tinyurl.com/y7hogtkj which I’ve pointed to the approximate spot where he discusses reference frames and general motion. I don’t recommend this lecture to the other non-spinners because it will make their brains hurt, so view it at your own risk.
Love a heavy dose of Engineering Dynamics early in the morning!
It has nothing to do with reference frames. It simply comes down to how you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Spinners describe it as motion in which the same side of the orbiting object remains oriented to the same fixed star throughout. Non-Spinners describe it as motion in which the same side of the orbiting object remains oriented to the center of revolution throughout.
The Spinners use reference frames to obfuscate an incredibly simple issue.
Flop_t has shown how it works if you treat “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a pure rotation about a fixed axis that is external to the orbiting object. He has proven that if you do that, then when the object is rotating about both an external axis and the internal axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. When the object is rotating only about the external axis, and not about the internal axis, you see always the same side of the object from the center of revolution.
“knowing the Physics is key”
As Tyson correctly writes, ftop_t and the three ring circus performers do not know the physics nor are they ever expected to know the physics.
ftop has proven if you unphysically & incorrectly ignore the difference between s and s’ believing motion has nothing to do with reference frames then your wrong conclusion is s=s’ simply because you ignored there is a difference in s and s’.
An informed, critical commenter needs to know physics too – in order to understand the sun is NOT orbiting around the moon; it is the moon rotating on its own axis once per earth orbit causing lunar day/night cycles. Simply because s is not equal s’. Because all motion is relative.
s = rotation speed around the internal axis in the inertial frame
s’ = rotation speed around the internal axis in an accelerated frame
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
Further clarifications regarding Tesla Figure 5 Proof:
Regarding Stage 2 where the Tesla’s balls are induced with a 1 m/s angular velocity CW, The calculations revealed a point on the outside edge of the ball (Point B) had a velocity of 10 m/s. Since Point B is 10 m away from the origin, its ‘global’ angular velocity is 1 rad/s, the same as the system angular velocity, which means the shaded portion of the ball stays pointed towards the center of orbit at all times. (i.e., the angular velocity of the ball wrt to rotating arm is zero, which means fixing the pivots tight would have the same result, as well as fixing the rod to the sphere)
It might be easier to visualize if with Stage 2, before the system angular velocity commences, you first induce the CW 1 m/s angular velocity of the ball. You will see the ball spinning wrt the non-rotating arm as well as wrt the inertial reference frame. When the system angular velocity commences, the ball keeps spinning wrt the inertial reference frame, but stops spinning wrt the rotating reference frame of the arm.
This proves what those of us who abide by the laws of physics have been saying all along; that the ball on a string, sphere attached to rod, rotates on its own axis at the same angular velocity as the orbital angular velocity of the object, which causes the same face of the object to point towards the center of orbit at all times.
The poor circus freak cult of flat earthers have yet to dispute any of the proofs I have given, because the numbers don’t lie. All they are left with is yelping out the same old tired and false Tesla slogans. This also flies in the face of F_Troop’s laughable “proof” regarding axes of rotation.
Tesla even confirms my above proof:
This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis
The existence of the concept of “rotation around a fixed axis” annihilates your “proofs” every time. Sorry SGW, you try to make your case based on kinematics, but you ignore the fact that (also based on kinematics) the motion of a ball on a string etc can be described as a rotation about a fixed axis, external to the ball, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
That’s not a correct physical description though DREMT as the center of the ball orbit is NOT orbiting the ball while there is “no rotation about the center of mass of the ball”.
DREMT and ftop_t maintain s=s’ when that is not physical so we’ll asign DREMT the center ring of the ball on string circus.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/0f1a5462f48f2ae310260c892cd4d31f/tenor.gif?itemid=6201446
Correction for above post. Second line should read:
Regarding Stage 2 where the Teslas balls are induced with a 1 rad/s angular velocity CW.
Ball4 and SGW: “rotation around a fixed axis” deniers.
No denial DREMT, the ball on string exhibits “rotation around a fixed axis” through Tesla’s O and C axes as shown in the detailed physics of Tesla’s wheel assembly for the “fixt” condition. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-583583
Wrong. The ball on a string only rotates about an external axis, not the internal axis.
I know for a fact that I am correct. That is what I love about this “debate”.
No denial DREMT, the ball on string exhibits “rotation around a fixed axis” through Tesla’s external O and internal C axes as shown in the detailed physics of Tesla’s wheel assembly for the “fixt” condition. See Tesla prove DREMT’s “fact” is wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-583583
I know I’m right.
Tesla knows DREMT is wrong.
You are ridiculous.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/0f1a5462f48f2ae310260c892cd4d31f/tenor.gif?itemid=6201446
I’m laughing, not crying.
With kinematics, the description of motion only goes so far. You can’t solve kinematic problems with descriptions. There are equations whereby you describe its motion using position and velocity vectors, and you use those equations to solve rigid body motion kinematic problems.
So solving the problem for Tesla’s Figure 5, we use the general equations for velocity for any two points on a rigid body: V(B) = V(A) + V(B/A) = V(A) + rB/Aw. Not that it matters, but the Tesla Figure 5 is not a fixed axis rotation problem.
When a spin angular velocity of 1 rad/s CW was induced on the ball about its own axis, the shaded portion of the ball remained facing the center of orbit, because Point A (ball COM) and Point B had the same angular velocity. That is not subject to debate. That is just what the numbers indicate. And the ball did not rotate wrt the rotating arm. So inducing a 1 rad/s CW spin angular velocity on the ball, or locking the pivots result in the same motion, rotation of the object about its own axis.
This is absolute proof that the ball on a string and sphere attached to a rod both rotate on their own axis one time per every one orbit.
No amount of barking slogans will change the result.
Of course it’s a fixed axis rotation problem. You are also ridiculous.
SkepticGoneWild 7:11 PM
Following a similar procedure to your debunk of Tesla Fig 5, I have debunked ftop_t’s “proof” here https://tinyurl.com/ftop-debunked
Easy-peasy!
TM,
It won’t matter. They do not have the mental capacity to understand. They don’t understand reference frames. They don’t understand relative motion. They are hopelessly stupid.
SkepticGoneWild 10:04 AM
Yes you are correct, but I think it’s more then mere stupidity though. It seems to be something more like faith, faith that the universe is simple like a child’s world. Faith does not demand proof.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584156
Because they believe if you keep repeating the same fundamental mistake, eventually it stops being a mistake.
Fixed axis rotation requires that all particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. When the pivots are unlocked, a point on the outside edge of the ball will not move in a circle about the origin ‘O’ of the system.
But it does not matter what label you want to put on it, the problem was solved using velocity equations for any rigid body.
Tesla and the non-spinners have a mental block. They think locking the pivots prevents rotation about its own axis. Wrong.
Once again, with the system not moving and pivots unlocked, induce a 1 rad/s CW spin on the ball. The ball spins against the bearing surface of the pivot. Now start the system rotating CW with a 1 rad/s angular velocity. Since the orientation of the bearing is now changing at the same rate as the ball’s angular velocity, the ball stops spinning wrt the bearing surface just as if the pivot was locked, but the ball is still spinning on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame. The induced spin did not stop.
"When the pivots are unlocked, a point on the outside edge of the ball will not move in a circle about the origin ‘O’ of the system."
When the pivots are locked, a point on the outside edge of the ball will move in a circle about the origin ‘O’ of the system. And when the pivots are locked is when the movement of the balls resembles that of a ball on a string, or the sphere on the end of the rod.
"Tesla and the non-spinners have a mental block. They think locking the pivots prevents rotation about its own axis. Wrong."
Of course it does. With the system not moving and the pivots unlocked, spin the ball on its own axis. It can rotate on its own axis. Now lock the pivots. You can no longer spin the ball on its own axis. Locking the pivots has literally prevented rotation of the ball about its own axis. Just because the ball appears to rotate on its own axis when the pivots are locked and the system is moving does not mean that it actually is rotating on its own axis in any true physical sense.
When the pivots are locked, the ball rotates about the origin ‘O’, and not about its own center of mass.
When confronted with reality, much yelping of slogans ensue.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/source.gif
When confronted with reality, much yelping of stupid gifs ensues.
Of course it does. With the system not moving and the pivots unlocked, spin the ball on its own axis. It can rotate on its own axis. Now lock the pivots. You can no longer spin the ball on its own axis.
You are not carefully analyzing the motion of the ball in relation to the pivot bearing surfaces which is crucial. Perhaps a modified Tesla Figure 5 might help. If you carefully follow this example, you will understand. If you resort to your preconceived ideas, you won’t get it:
Let’s assume there is a hollow cylinder attached to the end of the arm instead (oriented so you can see its circular cross section into the page). Now let’s insert a solid cylinder into the hollow cylinder so it fits snug, however, the surfaces will be frictionless, so the solid cylinder is able to freely rotate inside the hollow cylinder. The solid cylinder will have a 2 m diameter just like the ball example, and an arm length of 9 m as well to the COM of the cylinder. The hollow cylinder will have set screws where you can prevent the solid cylinder from spinning inside the hollow cylinder. So operationally its the same.
Let’s start with the system stationary and induce a 1 rad/s CW spin on the solid cylinder. It’s obvious that the cylinder rotates 1 rad/s wrt the inside surface of the hollow cylinder.
Now with the induced spin of the solid cylinder still in effect, let’s start the whole system rotating at a rate of 1 rad/s CW as well. The solid cylinder is obviously still spinning at the same rate, however, the hollow cylinder is now rotating at the same rate as well. This means the solid cylinder is no longer spinning wrt the inside surface of the hollow cylinder. This can be proven mathematically. The dimensions for this modified example are the same as for the Tesla ball example I calculated upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-583583
Point B on the far side edge of the solid cylinder has a tangential velocity of 10 m/s using the kinematic velocity equations for two points on a rigid body. However a point on the inside surface of the hollow cylinder adjacent to Point B also has a tangential velocity of 10 m/s using the v=rw formula (V=10 m(1 rad/s) = 10 m/s), which means the solid cylinder is not rotating wrt the inside surface of the hollow cylinder. So it would not matter if you tightened the set screws at all at this point.
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t make unsupported declarations. Last chance. Show me specifically via mathematics where there are errors in the above. You have to be able mathematically to prove your point.
You are just repeating exactly the same argument, over and over again. Scroll up, click on the link I posted at 1:54 PM, and read through the discussion there.
OK. So you can’t be taken seriously, and just repeat your unsupported declarations. I gave you a chance, but you failed.
I proved my point mathematically using standard kinematic equations. You obviously don’t have the capability to do likewise.
Oh well.
You don’t take me seriously anyway, and I really couldn’t care less.
A ball on a string is rotating about a fixed axis that is external to the ball, and not about the ball’s own center of mass. If it were rotating about both axes, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
I know that the above is just a fact about fixed axis rotation. Ftop_t has proven it mathematically if you want to go and discuss that with him, but I already knew that for a fact long before his proof, and have been arguing it for months.
You want to break it down into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass, and then try to pass that off as “synchronous rotation”. Both your math and your descriptions demonstrate that is exactly what you are trying to do. But “synchronous rotation” implies two rotations occurring simultaneously. A translation plus a rotation does not equal two rotations.
I gave you a chance to prove your point mathematically and you failed to deliver. You obviously could not follow my proof, nor could you dispute the numbers.
Oh well.
Disprove Madhavi Fig. 2(b). Disprove the concept of rotation around a fixed axis.
You can’t. It exists. And that annihilates your “proofs”.
Oh well.
The following shows the derivation of the velocity formula. No mention of translations whatsoever
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/me317/costello/Me317_cn3.htm#:~:text=%20Two%20Points%20on%20a%20Rigid%20Body%20Formulas,acceleration%20equations%20can%20be%20written%20as%2C%20More
I would take you seriously but you never show mathematical proof, nor can you dispute my calculations. You are either a troll or you just refuse to understand.
Madhavi Fig. 2(b) is shown by ftop_t in motion, just change the orbiting circle to a rectangle and add the sun:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eeylhdx6gx
I don’t care if you take me seriously or not, and I know I’m right.
Kinematics involves solving problems mathematically using kinematic equations. You have yet to perform such a task. I have.
F_troop did not prove anything. He is clueless in regards to physics.
Yes, Ball4. Ftop_t’s desmos work shows the object rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Note that there is a separate slider you can use to make the object rotate on its own axis as well, or not.
The orbiting object rotates once on its axis per orbit as shown in the inertial frame; ftop_t set up the slider to show observed motion in the accelerated frame for 0 rotations on its own axis.
“The orbiting object rotates once on its axis per orbit as shown in the inertial frame”
Only if you define “orbit” as a translation of the object along the orbital path. If you define “orbit” as a rotation of the object about an external axis, then the orbiting object rotates zero times on its axis per orbit in the inertial frame. Because the object shown is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
The object shown is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass in the accelerated frame shown by the slider. In the inertial frame, as initially shown, the orbiting object both rotates on its own internal axis AND the external axis just as shown in Fig. 2(b).
And proven by Tesla’s wheel assembly. DREMT’s assertions are not proofs.
Incorrect.
Tesla’s Figure 5 is a problem involving 2 axes of rotation. One about the COM of the ball and one about the origin for the system.
Let’s examine the unlocked condition and assume we can induce any amount of rotation on the ball. We will start with a system rotation of 1 rad/s CW. Next we will induce a 0.9 rad/s CW motion on the ball, then slowly increase its rotation rate to 1.1 rad/s CW.
Now if DREMT can please explain what happens when the ball reaches the 1 rad/s rotation rate. According to DREMT and ASSociates, when the that rate is reached, we enter a Twilight Zone where appearances are an illusion, and kinematic rules and conventions cease to exist, and the ball no longer rotates on its own axis.
I anticipate much sloganeering will follow.
“Tesla’s Figure 5 is a problem involving 2 axes of rotation. One about the COM of the ball and one about the origin for the system.”
If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution. With the pivots unlocked and the system revolving, the balls are translating in a circle. With the pivots locked and the system revolving, the balls are rotating about an external axis, and not about their own centers of mass.
This is why you can’t be taken seriously.
You did not answer the question. All you did was recite slogans without any proof whatsoever.
It’s a matter of simple trigonometry and physics that an object rotating on its own axis at the same rate as its orbital rate, shows the same face towards the center of orbit at all times.
It’s not a matter of if there are two axes of rotation with Tesla’s Figure 5. That’s a given.
You still did not address the problem.
I have never seen someone bob and weave so much.
The situation with Tesla’s Figure 5 is with the UNLOCKED condition. With the pivots UNLOCKED, a rotation of the balls about their own axis is INDUCED. What happens when the angular velocity of the balls go from 0.9 rad/s to 1.1 rad/s CW. Specifically, what happens at the 1 rad/s mark??? (System angular velocity is 1 rad/s CW)
(More diversions, weaving, bobbing, and slogans will ensue)
Once again, I don’t care if you take me seriously or not. I didn’t answer the question because it was a loaded question, displaying nothing but your own confusion. It’s not disputed that there are two ways you can describe the motion of something like a ball on a string, kinematically-speaking:
1) a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass. 2) a pure rotation of the object about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
Your example makes a case for describing the motion of the balls with unlocked pivots as type 1), with varying rates of axial rotation. OK, so what? With the pivots locked, type 2) makes much more sense.
A translation plus a rotation still does not equal two rotations.
Your problem is you don’t even seem to understand what constitutes rotation.
Wow! You simply will not address the problem.
The conditions are:
The Tesla Figure 5 system rotates at 1 rad/s CW
The pivots are unlocked. A rotation of the balls is induced, starting at 0.9 rad/s CW and increasing to 1.1 rad/s CW.
What happens at the 1 rad/s mark? Is the ball rotating on its own axis at the 1 rad/s mark? And which way does the shaded area of the ball face?
It’s a simple question.
"What happens at the 1 rad/s mark?"
Nothing.
"Is the ball rotating on its own axis at the 1 rad/s mark?"
It can be described as translating in a circle about the center of the apparatus, and rotating about its center of mass. A translation plus a rotation. Not two rotations. The ball is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. If it was, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution.
More bobbing and weaving.
It’s obvious the ball is rotating on its own axis at the 0.9 rad/s rate AND at the 1.1 rad/s rate because those rotations were INDUCED!
So why is the ball NOT rotating on its own axis at the 1 rad/s mark if that rotation is INDUCED as well. The answer: It IS rotating on its own axis at the 1 rad/s mark because that was INDUCED as well. Like, duh??!!!
The only question is where do the shaded areas of the balls point at the 1 rad/s mark? And that is easily solved via simple trigonometry and physics.
Pay attention, SGW.
The ball can be described as translating in a circle about the center of the apparatus, and rotating about its center of mass. A translation plus a rotation. Not two rotations. The ball is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. If it was, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution.
You even disagree with me when I am partially agreeing with you.
See continuation of this thread farther below.
I did indeed.
Running the sweep for December’s anomaly. Anyone can play, nobody can lose.
Imma pick 0.45 C
MikeR is at good those predictions, I’ll take whatever he says plus 0.01 C for increasing feedbacks.
That puts you same as me.
I’m figuring this is going to be a significant la Nina, so I’m honouring that with a fairly decent drop last month. I guess it’s about time global temps should respond.
No Svante, I am terrible at the prediction game since the demise of the daily UAH updates a couple of years ago.
Surely, despite the 5 to 6 month lag, La Nina must eventually show up to the party . As we are playing the Price is Right I will underbid Barry by the smallest possible margin and go for 0.44 C
I appreciate your willingness to embarrass yourself trying to make the next month prediction rather than wait for the new number and then make a post you expected exactly that like some imbeciles done in the recent past.
I myself was guessing big drop to about 0.27 but darn I didn’t expect to numbers update until monday ,
¿ ɥɐɥ ʇsod ɹǝʌǝlɔ ʎɹǝʌ
You win Eben!
¡ʎuuɐɔun s,ʇI
Let’s try that again:
¡ʎuuɐɔun s,ʇI
Hello
I am going to re-post this here for the benefit of ftop_t since it is his simulation I’m debunking. It was written in response to this post http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584870
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:25 AM
I have here, https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr, taken three snapshots of the Desmos simulation as provided, and calculated the rotation of a vector connecting point A to point B on the triangle.
Point A is the center of mass and point B is north of A at the start, so that rB/A is at 84.15 degrees to the X axis. rA is the position vector of point A and rB is the position vector of point B.
rB/A moves rotates from 84.15 to 174.15 (90) degrees between Position 1 and Position 3.
In summary, rB/A rotation is equal to the external rotation of 90 degrees (1:1), all in the OXY frame. Meanwhile rB/A has not rotated with respect to the moving frame.
Q.E.D.
That happens because the object is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the object changing orientation with respect to an inertial frame. How else would the particles of a body undergoing rotation about an external axis form concentric circles about that axis?
Study Madhavi Fig. 2(b). The rectangle is rotating about point O, and not about its own center of mass.
This whole issue is so simple that you miss the point altogether. You always come back to “the object is changing its orientation relative to the inertial reference frame, therefore it is rotating on its own axis”. That’s it. You cannot see beyond that.
A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.
That is typical non-spinner malarkey. “A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation” as long as it is 1:1 rotation, but if it is 2:1, or any other spin-orbit pair, then by all means it’s okay. Wanting to play both sides of the court!
No, that is just you not understanding our position. I don’t think you ever have, and I doubt you ever will. ftop_t has replied to you further upthread, by the way.
Well, you provided the link to the simulation initialized to the conditions you thought support your case.
All I did was calculate the motions in the first quadrant and report back.
My conclusion was that your simulation calculates a 1:1 spin-orbit thus debunking your case.
But now you say that I don’t understand your case but don’t dispute my calculations. You sound like Tesla in his silly newspaper article, “it’s an illusion.”
Re-read my 2:23 PM comment until understood.
You have debunked nothing.
Ah, yes Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 2:23 PM
This whole issue is so simple that you miss the point altogether. You always come back to “the object is changing its orientation relative to the inertial reference frame, therefore it is rotating on its own axis”. That’s it. You cannot see beyond that.
A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.
The issue is that you believe that a vector connecting two points on a rigid body and changing its orientation by 360 degrees as it completes one 360 degree orbit around a fixed point is not rotating. You have total faith in that belief. I respect that, even though it’s wrong, I respect a man’s faith.
It is rotating, but not on its own axis. It is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
The leader of the contrarian confused fruit cakes has developed a new field of physics.
Physics by repetition of assertions.
He should write the book and I am sure it will be a hit in some circles. Particularly volume 2 about using circular arguments.
More insults to ignore.
Ignore away. No one is stopping you.
OK, MikeR.
Madhavi Fig 2b clearly shows translation and rotation of frame X’Y’ with respect to fixed frame XY.
https://ibb.co/VDqcmmx
What else have you got? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The rectangle is rotating about point O, not about its own center of mass.
DREMT,
I could care less about the second rotation.
The ball can be induced with a rotation about its own axis in the unlocked position, much like some carnival rides. So there is no question whether it is rotating on its own axis in this example.
The system, or arms rotate about about the origin.
When the ball is induced with a rotation of 1 rad/s CW about its own axis, from simple trig, the shaded area points towards the center of orbit at all times, which means the whole system of balls and arms could be classified as a fixed axis rotation, since all points on the arms or balls move in a circle around the origin. However, the ball had an induced rotation about its own axis of 1 rad/s CW which did not disappear.
Yes, SGW. As I said before:
Its not disputed that there are two ways you can describe the motion of something like a ball on a string, kinematically-speaking:
1) a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass.
2) a pure rotation of the object about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
However, Tesla’s Fig. 5 apparatus with unlocked pivots is not a model of orbital motion. Tesla’s Fig. 5 apparatus with locked pivots is a much better model of orbital motion.
I think you missed my point with the unlocked pivots. Unlocking the pivots and inducing a 1 rad/s CW rotating on the ball gives the same exact motion as locking the pivots.
No, I missed nothing. Re-read.
Which means when the pivots are locked, the ball rotates on its own axis, since locking the pivots or not locking the pivots combined with the induced 1 rad/s rotation, produces the same exact motion.
No, when the pivots are locked the balls are physically unable to rotate on their own axes. The physical scenario has changed, even though the movement appears the same. With the pivots unlocked, and the axial rotation induced, you have some physical justification for treating the movement as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass, since that is what is actually, physically occurring. As the pivots lock, you deprive the balls of that ability to rotate about their own centers of mass in the true physical sense of the word.
It then makes much more sense to describe the movement of the balls as a pure rotation about an axis that is external to the balls, with no rotation about their own centers of mass. This is why Fig. 5 is such a good example for deprogramming Spinners. It shows how math does not always correctly represent the physics involved, and how appearances can be deceptive.
You answers are not credible. You don’t ever back them up with mathematical calculations using kinematic concepts.
Appearances can be deceptive, but that’s why we use mathematics to verify the various motions involved. The math does not lie.
With the pivots unlocked, the induced rotation of the ball about its own axis does not disappear when the spin angular velocity of the ball reaches 1 rad/s CW. When the ball reaches the 1 rad/s mark, the math indicates the ball does not rotate wrt the rotating arm of the device, but it is still obviously rotating wrt the inertial reference frame. So you could fix the pivot and it would not matter. You are looking at the wrong reference frame.
Figure 5 is a great example of why you have everything backwards.
And you STILL have not explained why when the induced rotation of the ball goes from 0.9 rad/s to 1.1 rad/s, why it stops rotating on its own axis at the 1 rad/s mark? Hello!! McFly!!
“And you STILL have not explained why when the induced rotation of the ball goes from 0.9 rad/s to 1.1 rad/s, why it stops rotating on its own axis at the 1 rad/s mark? Hello!! McFly!”
It doesn’t. I have explained to you twice now that when the pivots are unlocked, and the axial rotation induced, you have some physical justification for describing the motion as a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass. Please read my comments more carefully.
Descriptions only get you so far. Solving the velocity equations for two points on any rigid body indicated the ball on a string rotates on its own axis. You cannot argue with the math.
You cannot argue with the existence of the concept of rotation around a fixed axis.
Kinematics is no good if you can’t use the principles to solve problems. That’s the whole point. One has to use kinematic equations to solve the problem at hand. You have not done this even one time. You have no credibility.
You need to solve the problem with equations for velocity. Those numbers can tell you whether the shaded side of the ball points towards the center of orbit when the ball is induced with a 1 rad/s CW rotation about its own axis. I have done the numbers. You have not. All you do is shout slogans. Slogans do not solve the problem.
But you won’t ever perform the calculations because:
#1 You don’t know how; or
#2 You do no how and know I am right.
I am guessing #1. You could not even grasp the issue of the relative motion of the ball wrt the rotating arm.
I gave you dimensions for the Tesla Figure 5 apparatus. Now prove you are right using the appropriate equations so I and others can check your work.
Otherwise all you produce is meaningless noise.
If you had been paying attention, and if your mind was open, you would have noticed that our discussion of Fig. 5 is an argument for why the math you use does not represent the correct physics for the motion of a ball on a string etc.
I have explained why rotation about a fixed axis is the correct description for the ball on a string, and ftop_t has done the math. The arguments have all been made.
And once again, I don’t care if you take me seriously, say I have no credibility, or say this is all just meaningless noise. Just stop responding if that is the case. I have nothing to prove to anyone here.
I have nothing to prove to anyone here.
You don’t ever prove anything. Just endless slogans.
No need for you to keep responding to me, then.
To recap 3 years of discussions on the Moon’s spin-orbit:
NASA Website
Q: Does the Moon rotate?
A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
Newton’s Principia
https://tinyurl.com/Principia-Cohen-and-Whitman
Now, since a lunar day (the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis) is a month long [i.e., is equal to a lunar month, the periodic time of the moon’s revolution in its orbit], the same face of the moon will always very nearly look in the direction of the further focus of its orbit, and therefore will deviate from the earth on one side or the other according to the situation of that focus.
Kinematics demonstrates how:
https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr
The reality that non-spinners refuse to accept is that science truth is a multiply connected web.
Spinners are “rotation around a fixed axis” deniers.
D*R*E*M*T 2:03 PM
Your timely comment reminded me that this video should be part of the recap:
https://youtu.be/GUvoVvXwoOQ?t=3172
@Tyson
You HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!
This video literally supports my point.
I show this exact example here in Example 2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585806
@Tyson
You do realize if the professor held it in his hand at arms length, did not spin it, then raised his arm above his head in an arc; it would not be spinning in his hand and would look like this?
Kinematics demonstrates how:
https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr
The disc would NOT be spinning, it would be rotating about the professor’s head
(1) ONE EXTERNAL AXIS OF ROTATION!!
vector rB/A demonstrates the rotation.
https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr: 90 degrees in the first quadrant of the orbit.
One external axis of rotation, Tyson. What about this do you find so difficult to understand? The object has rotated about the origin, O, an external axis by 90 degrees. One single motion. A rotation around a fixed axis.
It would not be spinning in his hand because observing from his hand is an accelerated frame. Observed from the inertial frame however it is spinning on its own axis once per orbit experiencing a day/night cycle(complete arc) as ftop_t demonstrates here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Observed from the inertial reference frame, there is one external axis of rotation, as ftop_t writes. The object has rotated about the origin, O, an external axis by 90 degrees. One single motion. A rotation around a fixed axis. No internal axis rotation.
The reason ftop_t’s “simulation” continually gets it wrong can be seen in his post of ftop_t December 6, 2020 at 11:13 AM here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
His matrix rotation does not allow for the fact that there are two frames of reference.
Unless he has disavowed that comment.
Observed from the inertial reference frame, Tyson, there is one external axis of rotation, as ftop_t writes. The object has rotated about the origin, O, an external axis by 90 degrees. One single motion. A rotation around a fixed axis. No internal axis rotation
No internal axis rotation observed in the accelerated hand frame, one rotation on own axis per orbit observed in the inertial frame as ftop_t has demonstrated:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
No movement of the object whatsoever observed in the accelerated hand frame, zero rotations on own axis per external axis rotation observed in the inertial frame as ftop_t has demonstrated:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:56 AM
there is one external axis of rotation, and one internal axis of rotation, like so https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Solar_system_bodies_rotation_animation.svg
No, there is only the external axis of rotation. God you are thick.
one rotation on own axis per external axis orbit observed in the inertial frame as ftop_t has demonstrated:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Let me ask you a question, Ball4.
From the inertial reference frame: How does an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis, remain oriented, in your opinion?
a) With the same face always oriented towards the same distant star, throughout.
b) With the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution, throughout.
P.S: bear in mind that if you answer with a), then that is a description of curvilinear translation, and not rotation about an external axis.
If you answer with b), then you agree with me.
DREMT, for your 12:47pm answer just consult & read/quote Madhavi
Fig. 2(a) which shows, observed in her inertial frame, “curvilinear translation” motion for the rectangle is NO rotation about an internal axis while partially orbiting A external axis w/parallel circles. Example: orbiting Hubble staring at Andromeda.
Then see Fig. 2(b) “rotation” motion about internal axis once per orbit, concentric circles which ftop_t puts into motion here with concentric ~circles illustrated (green,blue,red). Example: ~Earth’s moon staring at Earth
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
So your answer is a).
See Madhavi for my answer at 1:55pm; along with ftop_t desmos motion.
You have answered, a). The correct answer, as shown by the Madhavi text, is b).
No, only in the Madhavi accelerated frame is there no rotation on the 2(b) rectangle internal axis. As shown here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
No, from the inertial reference frame there is no rotation about the 2(b) rectangle internal axis. It rotates only about point O (the external axis). From the accelerated frame it appears not to move at all.
Since understanding:
Translation
Rotation (External Axis – also known as orbit)
Rotation (Internal Axis)
Is obviously challenging to grasp, these views should help everyone describe the situation consistently
In each view, there is:
Reference Frame: designated by the large BLACK dotted lines (15,15),(-15,15),(-15,-15),(15,-15)
Observational point: Within the Reference frame there is a black dot at (-12,-12)
This observation point and the reference frame (black dotted lines) is considered FIXED
Accelerating Frame: designated by the large BLUE dotted lines
Observational Point WITHIN the Accelerating frame
Circle in the Accelerating Frame that can rotate WITHIN the Accelerating Frame
Red Dot that Shows rotation WITHIN the Accelerating Frame
Line 2 Moves the Accelerating Reference Frame
Line (4 or 5) Moves the Red Dot (rotates around an internal axis) in the Accelerating Reference Frame
Example 1
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ubrauqnqkh
Click 4, Axial rotation without translation
Set 4 back to zero
Click 2, horizontal translation without axial rotation
Set 2 back to zero
Click 2 & 4, Axial rotation with horizontal translation
Set 2 & 4 back to zero
Click 3 & 4 Axial rotation with vertical translation
(Note: this is the professor tossing the disc in the air)
Example 2
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/41o8rjrjnm
Click 4, Axial rotation without translation
Set 4 back to zero
Click 2, diagonal translation without axial rotation
Set 2, back to zero
Click 2 & 4, Axial rotation with diagonal translation
Same as horizontal & vertical
These are all translations of the frame with movement in the accelerating frame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(geometry)
Example 3
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/lw8lddwbf6
Click 5, Axial rotation without external axis rotation
Set 5 back to zero
Click 2, Rotation about a fixed external axis without axial rotation
Set 2, back to zero
Click 2 & 5, Rotation about a fixed external axis WITH axial rotation.
This is a rotation of the frame about the origin, and a rotation WITHIN the accelerating frame
Rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“Mathematically, a rotation is a rigid body movement which, unlike a translation, keeps a point fixed. This definition applies to rotations within both two and three dimensions (in a plane and in space, respectively.)
In examples 1 & 2, the accelerating frame is translating.
In example 3, the accelerating frame is rotating (around (0,0))
Lastly, we can zoom in on the accelerating frame
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cifmknmzbu
In this frame, the black dot is part of the frame.
In all examples above, when 4 has not been clicked and only the frame is accelerating, the view looks static with no movement.
This view could be representative of any of the examples above. This view and frame could be translating vertically, horizontally, diagonally, or rotating about the origin.
From the small black dot within the frame there is no difference and no movement is seen within the frame
Now, Click on 5
The object in the frame is rotating about its axis. Again this could be in any of the examples above.
If you Click on 2, the entire frame disappears. This is the problem with @MikeR’s diagrams. There is no reference frame that is consistent with his small boxes.
The black dot is either WITHIN the accelerating frame and sees the two views (static, axial rotation) or the accelerating frame is only visible from (-12,-12) where the entire movement both external axis rotation and internal axis rotation is visible
If you zoom out, it becomes clear the accelerating frame is rotating and the only way to see the same side from the origin is to stop the axial rotation.
This is completely consistent with the videos @Tyson has been posting.
“Example 3
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/lw8lddwbf6
Click 5, Axial rotation without external axis rotation
Set 5 back to zero
Click 2, Rotation about a fixed external axis without axial rotation
Set 2, back to zero
Click 2 & 5, Rotation about a fixed external axis WITH axial rotation.”
Agreed. Now try getting Ball4 and Tyson to accept that. They keep arguing that when you click 2, without clicking 5, that it is rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
top_t 11:22 AM
This is completely consistent with the videos @Tyson has been posting.
Wrong, unless you can replicate this https://ibb.co/2cKnWvW.
You claim to have a degree in Math; why then can’t you see that the unit vectors in the fixed frame and the unit vectors in the accelerating frame, differ as a function of the angle theta which varies as the accelerating frame orbits.
You keep making the same mistake over and over.
You are having trouble understanding translation, rotation and orbit. Read the following statement and you’ll see that it is very precise and unambiguous:
The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
Yes, very precise, very unambiguous…and also very wrong.
Ftop,
Get your desmos graphical calculator out and prove the Mechanical Engineering Department of Purdue University are full of gullible Engineers brainwashed by double speaking Big Brother Physicists, see –
Chapter 3 – 2D MOVING REFERENCE FRAME PROBLEMS
Views from different moving frames
at
https://www.purdue.edu/freeform/me274/animations/
and
https://i.postimg.cc/LSWgrfVx/Robotiic-Arm-Purdue.gif
The motion of P (or in this case lack of) in the reference frame of AP is particularly relevant.
@MikeR,
Thank you for EXACTLY proving my point. EXACTLY!!
Purdue motion example with TWO ROTATIONS
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!1087&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AJbiPIlJ2EBnGXA
Revised DESMOS to show line segments instead of circles and dots (Note: this is the same model as above)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dd6w8vqd24
I shrank the size of the orbit down so the segments would be more comparable in length by setting elliptic shape A=5, B=5
I used the same colors to help make it easier
Orange line = Orbit Rotation = OA Segment in Purdue model
Purple Line = Axial Rotation = AP Segment in Purdue model
There are three views in the Purdue examples
“View From Fixed Ground” = Example 3 when you click on 2 & 5.
From point (-12,-12)
This is EXACTLY what I demonstrated
Note how the concentric circles occur. TWO ROTATIONS and a point P has to get closer and further from “o” as the rotation occurs around P
This would be the view from Earth IF the moon was rotating
Rotation at “o” = Orbit
Rotation at “A” = Axial rotation of the moon.
With TWO rotations, Point P gets closer and further from “o”
If the moon was rotating, Point P represents a face pointing at “o” and then pointing away.
The DESMOS view EXACTLY matches VIEW FROM FIXED GROUND in Purdue model.
View From Link OA = Example 3 when you click 5 (BUT NOT 2).
Note how Point P gets closer and farther from “o” but the view from the person is an axial rotation
This is the view I produced when I zoomed into the accelerating frame:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7jh8ob9qjm
You would be standing at the small dot WITHIN the blue dotted frame and you would not experience the orbit.
This would also be the view if you stood at (-12,-12) and only clicked on 2, because there would be only ONE rotation about “o” ONE ROTATION!! ONE ROTATION!! Which is an ORBIT
View from Link AP = Why your boxes are wrong
You are holding the rotating frame static
Now it appears “o” is rotating around YOU
You have taken the orbital rotation and moved it INTO the orbiting frame
I have taken the exact model posted for the Examples above and removed from objects to only leave the lines like in the Purdue example
My model WITHOUT ANY MATHEMATICAL CHANGES EXACTLY matches ALL THE VIEWS in Purdue examples
I can’t produce VIEW FROM AP LINK because when you Click on 5, the entire frame moves in DESMOS
This is because the VIEW FROM AP LINK is non-physical. There is no static frame where the Earth rotates around the moon. I changed DESMOS earlier to put the moon at the center
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ys2au7gpv
This is what you are doing with your small windows in the GIFs you post
I used the EXACT same model as my comments here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-587911
Just replaced the orbital views with line segments.
I guess Purdue is wrong too!!!
I added the letter “O”, “A”, and “P” so you won’t get lost comparing Purdue and DESMOS
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1hyv5pkdn0
Zoomed view
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kyyp9cif1w
Ftop,
As usual, I am really struggling to follow your logic, but it is probably just me (maybe not, does anyone else, except the cranks, purport to understand Ftop’s logic?).
Despite my struggle, I can see your depiction is from the perspective of the rotating reference frame OA not AP.
Also notice in both relevant cases the viewing box in the Purdue depictions is stationary and not rotating!
I am also puzzled with your desmotic elliptically orbiting Earth. Are we dealing with the Earth/Sun case here? Why have you shifted focus? If so why is the object, presumably the Sun, at the exact centre and not at either focus of the orbit? Totally Bizarre.
Cutting to the chase.
If your claims have the slightest credibility then the Mechanical Engineering Department at Purdue University is teaching fraudulent material!
Who was to know?
It just confirms the rumours about the fake moon landings. Neil Armstrong who was a graduate of the Engineering School at Purdue could never have made it to the Moon with his fake belief in the rotation of the Moon.
Accordingly you need to send your desmos calculations to the department as soon as possible to get their material removed before more Engineers, like Armstrong, are misled.
If they respond indicating that they think you are a total fruit cake, then you might have to go higher up the chain or take your concerns to the press. On the latter OANN, Newsmax or even Tucker Carlson might give you a hearing. Maybe post your stuff on 4chan and hopefully Qanon can take it up and have their “minds” diverted from politics to the coverup perpetrated by the Deep State Cabal of Physicists and Astronomers.
The populist uprisings against Physics and Engineering departments will give federal and state government parliaments a breather. So Ftop put on your fur hat and horns and lead the charge.
Lest I be accused of fomenting civil unrest, I can assure the reader of the above comments, that my tongue is firmly embedded in my cheek. Dealing with too much fruit cake does that to you.
@MikeR
Are you REALLY this obtuse?
I was being facetious about Purdue.
Here are your choices:
1. Purdue is correct, therefore I am correct (because the Purdue model and what I created are EXACTLY the same)
2. Purdue and I are incorrect
Choose wisely.
Thank goodness Ftop, that you clarified that Purdue University was correct. That is from an inertial laboratory frame, the segment AP is rotating while not rotating from the rotating reference frame of AP itself. I was really worried that you were actually serious.
My bad , and I will treat all of your future contributions as part of a stand up, or sit down, comic routine.
However I note that you did not clarify my other concerns with regards to the following,
1. your depiction is again from the perspective of a rotating reference frame OA, see
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pbeder7snf
and press the play button in line 2.
2. in both relevant cases, the viewing box in the Purdue depictions is stationary and not rotating!
3. your elliptically orbiting Earth. Are we dealing with the Earth/Sun case here ? Why have you shifted focus? If so why is the object, presumably the Sun , is at the exact centre and not at the focus of the orbit? Bizarre.
My only other possible interpretation is that this an equally bizarre attempt to demonstrate that, the only way to have a viewing box physically present, is by placing it at the origin!
Remember the viewing box is an abstraction, just like axes that “follow” an object as it orbits, or “accompanies” a hiker as he perambulates. It doesn’t need to be physically present.
In the case of the hiker, unnecessarily carrying a viewing box or axes on your back, every where you go, would be highly laborious. However a sextant could come in handy.
Ftop I have already explained this to you, but it bears repeating. A compass rose does not have to be present at every location on a map. For convenience it is usually placed at only one position on the map and its presence is implicit elsewhere. Likewise for viewing boxes, see point 2 above.
Ftop, you really have a major problem with abstract thought and appear to be an inordinately focused individual, the type who would be great at computer security work (and graphical calculators ) but struggle with abstract concepts in Physics such as reference frames etc..
On the latter I would love you to continue on* with your geometry project work and do the next section of the Purdue Engineering Course which covers the Coriolis effect.
https://www.purdue.edu/freeform/me274/animations/the-merry-go-round-and-the-coriolis-component-of-acceleration/
Can you explain the Coriolis effect without invoking inertial frames of reference such as the stationary observer? Good luck and God speed, but don’t let it be a distraction, and please try your hardest to answer the questions above.
p.s. of course I can, like yourself, duplicate the path traced out by P in the in inertial frame of the previous Purdue animation . e.g For N=3 in
https://i.postimg.cc/RF3YWgJS/Scrambler-Lin-Mc-Mullin.gif
* it should keep you off the streets and away from the riotous temptations that seem to be plaguing your countrymen.
@MikeR
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that you are either disingenuous, obtuse, or both.
Purdue’s model has three (3) boxes: https://i.postimg.cc/LSWgrfVx/Robotiic-Arm-Purdue.gif
VIEW FROM FIXED GROUND IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f6jnuqj5cj
VIEW FROM LINK OA IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/msff8x5b4q
VIEW FROM LINK OP simply holds the axis (a) static like I did here:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8rjf5quizs
In the Zoomed view, I explained that I can’t hold a rotating frame (blue dotted) static in DESMOS
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kyyp9cif1w
I explained this “Moon centric” view here, and why it is a perspective, but it is non-physical
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-586173
All three (3) views of Purdue’s model of rotation around two (2) axis = FTOP_T’s model
If two things are the same and identical, then they are either both correct or both wrong.
You claiming they are not the same is disingenuous. I literally used the same colors so you wouldn’t get confused.
No Ftop, I am not claiming that you cannot reproduce the Purdue depiction with your desmos calculations.
It is your interpretation, extrapolated from your previously expressed views about fixed inertial frames and rotational frames, which is highly suspect.
In particular , to quote Purdue, “an observer on link AP who sees no motion of P” in contrast to the fixed observer in the inertial frame ” who sees a complicated path for P”.
The point of the Purdue exercise is that you have hopefully learnt* the importance of the inertial reference frame when dealing with rotation,
This is for an example where there is a physical link between the 2 components.
Ftop, now go and apply the exact same concepts in the case of 2 objects that are not connected and can rotate independently such as the Earth/Moon system.
In particular, disprove (underline disprove) that the moon is not rotating on its axis in the inertial frame. This is your ultimate challenge.
A proof, that is appropriate for a single rigid body, that you can rotate an object with one rotation, does not prove anything, other than you know how to use a graphical calculator.
* if you haven’t understood, then we will have to introduce Physics concepts such as angular momentum and rotational energy which are appropriate for the inertial frame.
To save Ftop some time (I am sure he can simulate the Coriolis effect geometrically) and to hammer the final nail in, Ftop should try to simulate the following orbital pacman who prefers to do things in stages.
This pacmam is a baseball fanatic and also loves both geometry and calculus so his staged orbit is via bases arranged as triangles, rectangles, octagons etc..
For pacman playing conventional baseball –
https://i.postimg.cc/kJbFJNKs/Baseball3.gif
For pacman indulging in his passions for geometry , proof by induction and calculus * –
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
Cutting to the chase again.
Can Ftop disprove that pacman rotates on his axis at each base as he proceeds on his orbit? If he cannot then his non-rotating thesis is in major trouble and should be euthanised, via baseball’s Mercy Rule.
As Ftop is the geometry based consultant for the contrarian fruit cakes, he could advise them as to his conclusions and there is an extremely small, but finite chance, they might listen to their voice of authority.
* this is also relevant ( see Archimedes) –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion
“After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that you are either disingenuous, obtuse, or both.”
Yep. There is no point talking to him.
Yup, @DREMT
It is just so pathetic and deceitful what @MikeR pulled.
He posted the Purdue link as a “gotcha” to refute me but was too obtuse to realize that my model EXACTLY matched each Reference View in the Purdue examples.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-588415
After I got off the floor from laughing, I simply replaced the dots with lines in DESMOS and EXACTLY recreated the Purdue views
@Mike R posted: https://www.purdue.edu/freeform/me274/animations/
A few clicks and I added the letters “O”, “A”, and “P” from the SAME DESMOS graph
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1hyv5pkdn0
Zoomed view
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kyyp9cif1w
Then he took one of my graphs and purposely changed the scale of the “Y” axis to obscure the exact correlation between Purdue models and my DESMOS version.
That was followed be more babbling from him to avoid the admission that his “gotcha” proved me right again.
Really sad…
Ftop,
You appear to have gone nuts, I have not changed anything about the “y” scaling .
The scales appear to change depending on your device. The scales themselves are isometric! All you have to do is press the home button, at the right, to confirm that!
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pbeder7snf
I have already pointed out that you can match the Purdue depictions using the desmos graphical calculator, which is totally unsurprising.
I repeat, I am not disputing this.
The actual problem is your lack of understanding of the underlying concepts regarding different frames of reference.
These concepts were the whole point of the Purdue animations. You didn’t realise this? Amazing!
As for the rest of your garbage, where do I start?
Despite it most likely being a waste of time, as Ftop is unlikely to respond with relevant answers, if he wants to be taken seriously he might want to address some basic general questions.
These are
1. Ftop, why can’t you understand the difference between fixed inertial and rotating non inertial frames of reference?
2. Why can’t you handle abstract concepts such as directional axes or view boxes that implicitly “move ” with an object?
3. Why can’t you even attempt to understand the relevant physics with your avoidance of angular momentum and rotational energy?
4. Ftop , why have you bothered to turn up to the debate only armed with a graphical calculator?
5. Why aren’t you willing to show the full derivation, accompanied by explanations, of your equations for orbital and axial rotation so we can more easily work out what your underlying assumptions are?
More specific questions for Ftop are-
(a) How does your geometric modelling cope with the purely geometric case of the orbiting and axially rotating pacman?
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
Can you explain away the axial rotation at each base?
(b) Why does your elliptical orbits have the Earth at the centre and not at either focus?
Your depiction is –
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hohccm0s6t
(c) accordingly why does your attempt at libration appear to be out by a factor of 4 or more?
(d) Why do you think that a single rotation, which is appropriate for a rigid body can be applied to the case of the Earth/ Moon where the Moon is capable of independent motion , such as rotating on its axis while orbiting?
(e) Why is your attempt to disprove* the Moon’s axial rotation, by adding a rotation to an already rotating “platform” relative to a fixed inertial frame (see Perdue) , not to be considered laughable?
* yes, two rotations w.r.t. to a fixed external set of axes will show all sides of the moon per orbit. This in indisputable. What is also indisputable is, one rotation about an axis through the centre of mass of the moon, will show only side of the moon per orbit.
I have many more questions for Ftop but that will be enough for the moment. Can he address any one of them, let alone all of them? Are we just going to get an orgy of desmotic calculations or perhaps he will borrow the avoidant mechanisms** of his contrarian fruit cake colleagues?
** I am acutely and genuously aware of their standard set of procedures to flee the debate when confronted.
@MikeR
I will take these first two points:
These are:
1. Ftop, why cant you understand the difference between fixed inertial and rotating non inertial frames of reference?
The fixed inertial frame for this discussion is the Earth – Moon system. Period. It does not include the Sun, it does not include the Milky Way, it does not include the broader expansion of the universe. We are modeling the relationship between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth, in general, is a non-inertial frame because it rotates on its own axis and also orbits the Sun, but FOR THIS EXERCISE, it is considered the fixed point in an inertial frame.
Again, for this exercise the Earth’s rotation and orbit are excluded in order to model the moon’s relationship. In this fixed inertial frame (Earth-Moon), the Earth is considered to be the fixed component because the Moon orbits the Earth (although you will probably argue that next).
The rotating non-inertial frame is the orbiting moon. The question has been and continues to be is there an axial rotation of the orbiting object WITHIN this overall fixed inertial frame (Earth-Moon) and specifically is the non-inertial frame both orbiting and rotating.
2. Why cant you handle abstract concepts such as directional axes or view boxes that implicitly move with an object?
In the Purdue examples you presented. The specific “View from Link AP” is a non-inertial frame with fictitious forces like centrifugal.
In “View from Link AP” there is an axis point “O” that is rotating AROUND that view. So the observer at Link AP PERCEIVES an object orbiting around his position.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that within that frame it is a perceived rotation for the person IN THE NON-INERTIAL FRAME of a remote object going around them.
In your Purdue example #3 – “View from AP Link”
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!1087&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AJbiPIlJ2EBnGXA
What does “O” represent in the Earth-Moon model?
If you get that question right, is having “O” rotate around “Link AP” consistent with the system being modeled? Is that how the system operates within the entire non-inertial frame?
Are you going to argue that perception is reality now?
Points 3-5
3. Why cant you even attempt to understand the relevant physics with your avoidance of angular momentum and rotational energy?
Angular momentum does not change spatial relationships. If you drive 80MPH vs 40MPH does the distance from the wheel axle to the tread change? The angular momentum does, but does the radius. At what speed does the radius change?
Don’t duck the answer, I want an answer in MPH.
4. Ftop , why have you bothered to turn up to the debate only armed with a graphical calculator?
Geometry IS THE METHOD to determine spatial relationships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry
“Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: γεωμετρία; geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement”) is, with arithmetic, one of the oldest branches of mathematics. It is concerned with properties of space that are related with distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures.”
EMPHASIS MINE
5. Why arent you willing to show the full derivation, accompanied by explanations, of your equations for orbital and axial rotation so we can more easily work out what your underlying assumptions are?
This is laughably absurd. You post GIFs that allow ZERO interaction by the user. No code, no controls, no calculations
Here is a video that proves men fly: https://youtu.be/5qhZEAIzZGU
It is equivalent in rigor to your GIFs which provide just as much “proof”
EVERY DESMOS post has the calculations exposed. It can’t be hidden like moronic GIFs
Produce one (1) proof where I (THE USER) can initiate and stop the rotation at the origin and at the object axis to compare.
Every DESMOS calculation I have posted allows this. EVERY ONE!!
Follow on questions:
More specific questions for Ftop are-
(a) How does your geometric modelling cope with the purely geometric case of the orbiting and axially rotating pacman?
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
Can you explain away the axial rotation at each base?
You should be embarrassed to post this question. The fact you are not says it all
Are you going to ask about the speed of an unladen swallow now?
(b) Why does your elliptical orbits have the Earth at the centre and not at either focus?
Your depiction is
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hohccm0s6t
i have made it clear the models started with circular to prove the math, I added elliptical to eliminate that objection and the elliptic location can be moved as necessary. You do know the barycenter lies within the Earth’s physical mass? Oh, nevermind…
(c) accordingly why does your attempt at libration appear to be out by a factor of 4 or more?
The purpose was to show libration characteristics can occur without axial rotation. This was proven true, axial rotation is not necessary for libration effects to occur.
(d) Why do you think that a single rotation, which is appropriate for a rigid body can be applied to the case of the Earth/ Moon where the Moon is capable of independent motion , such as rotating on its axis while orbiting?
All satellites eventually lose their angular momentum to the objects around them. The Earth is slowing down…
(e) Why is your attempt to disprove* the Moons axial rotation, by adding a rotation to an already rotating platform relative to a fixed inertial frame (see Perdue) , not to be considered laughable?
This is absurd. Those claiming an orbit and an axial rotation are “adding” another axial rotation.
Ftop, is the best you can do with regards to points 1 and 2?
“The fixed inertial frame for this discussion is the Earth Moon system. Period.”
Your thoughts are a morass of confusion and you have decided to redefine , by an evidence free assertion, the concept of an inertial frame.
The Earth and Moon are both rotating about the common barycentre and consequently this accelerating reference frame is non-inertial.
In contrast, the appropriate inertial frame is a non-rotating sidereal based frame. The only way anyone would think the stars of the firmament are actually rotating around some common axis would be from the perspective of someone on a rotating Earth. Your Paleolithic argument was lost several centuries ago.
To emphasise, Astronomers have used the stars as the inertial reference frame for several centuries. For a contemporary reference, look up International Celestial Reference System (ICRS).
Ftop, here is some light reading where some Astronomers used this reference system to measure the parameters of the Moon’s axial rotation.
https://tinyurl.com/y5ncnr46
Regarding point 2, your argument is essentially based on your fundamental misunderstanding, that was addressed by point 1.
It is also an excellent demonstration that you can geometrically reproduce the Purdue animations without necessarily understanding them.
https://i.postimg.cc/LSWgrfVx/Robotiic-Arm-Purdue.gif
For the reference frame AP that is rotating, then the point O will rotate while P is stationary with one exception. For the case shown, O rotates 3 times as AP rotates 4 times w.r.t. to the fixed inertial reference frame. This is derived from the well understood identity 4 -1 = 3 .
My depiction illustrates this –
https://i.postimg.cc/tXt8Z69W/Purdue-N-4-Epicycloid.gif
For the case when AP is rotating at the same rate as the orbital arm, then we get the 1 – 1 = 0 identity and O appears stationary with respect to the rotating frame AP. This is why the Earth appears to be stationary (give or take a few degrees of libration) to an astronaut on the Moon.
Again, using your logic, AP is the inertial frame of reference and consequently the reference frame at left must be a non-inertial accelerating reference frame! This is in total contradiction the to the “fixed frame” label attached to this reference frame.
So Ftop, it’s time to get out your pitch forks and storm the barricades of the Engineering Department of Purdue University to force them to correct this horrendous mistake . Don’t forget you fur hat and horns.
P.s. I have just read your reply regarding the other points. I will need time, maybe weeks, to recover before I attempt to comment further.
I am back from the Doctor. It seems I have strained an intercostal muscle in my side after laughing way too hard at Ftop’s latest comments.
I am on now on pain killers so my following comments may need to be assessed accordingly.
Ftop’s talents are ckearly wasted as a computer security consultant and should think about a career as a comedian.
I have a suggestion that he should consider. Which involves a highly amusing non-inertial frame of reference stand up routine. If he can find a theatre that has a rotating stage, he could drop his pants and “moon” the audience”. Some 180 degrees later, the external fixated audience would find out how ill equipped Ftop is, anatomically (and unfortunately intellectually).
As an encore, He could then pull out a motorised rotating stool and demonstrate the effect of adding rotations. If he ran the motor in the opposite direction to the stage , and at the same speed, then the audience could be continually exposed to Ftop’s moon ( accompanied by some Pink Floyd*).
The whole sequence could be simulated first using desmos to make sure the geometry is totally correct.
* obvious candidates are Dark Side of the Moon and the Lunatic is in my Head.
p.s. I will try and comment further if I can somehow stop laughing, so I just have a very brief response to Ftop’s comment regarding Physics.
To quote Ftop directly –
“Angular momentum does not change spatial relationships. If you drive 80MPH vs 40MPH does the distance from the wheel axle to the tread change? The angular momentum does, but does the radius. At what speed does the radius change?
Dont duck the answer, I want an answer in MPH.”
Ftop’s thoughtful comment should be left for posterity, unadorned by my unnecessary comments. I would have thought Ftop would realise his comments will be available on the Internet for years. Clearly he has no idea.
However, if I was forced to answer the question about the speed at which the radius will change, my answer is as follows –
The radius will definitely change for any non-zero speed as a result of relativistic length contraction, as observed from a stationary observer (which is in another inertial reference frame).
More to follow…..
Still, in some pain this morning, trying not to laugh at Ftop’s responses above and, at this time, can only address one more of Ftop’s ludicrous comments.
The others may have to wait.
Ftop, it is a shame you refused to answer the question about the orbiting pacman.
This baseball playing pacman caused a great deal of consternation to the contrarian fruit cakes several months ago. Despite being mathematically illiterate, they at least could see the relevance to orbital motion and axial rotation. What’s your excuse for being oblivious to the relevance? Do you want me to explain it to you? Surely not, but nothing about you surprises me any more.
What surprises me even more is the problem is almost purely geometric, so it is right up your alley. Desmos should be able to handle this in a breeze and prove that the pacman at each base does, or does not rotate, on his axis.
The only other aspect to this problem is integral calculus from first principles ( Archimedes derivation* of pi employing a N- sided polygon that approaches a circle, as N approaches infinity) and differentiation (tangent to a circle from chords, that in the limit, approach zero length).
Ftop, I don’t believe you could possibly get a maths degree without learning introductory calculus. I learnt this stuff at high school. Maybe things have changed over the past 50 tears or the US education system is seriously deficient, or perhaps both.
Anyway to focus your mind , here again are the examples for you to forensically dissect using desmos.
For the pacman playing conventional baseball
https://i.postimg.cc/kJbFJNKs/Baseball3.gif
For the pacman indulging in his passions for geometry , proof by induction and calculus
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
Will Ftop come up with another b.s. excuse to not attempt the problem? Time will tell whether is a geometric bloviating blowhard or not.
Finally, Ftop – ” Are you going to ask about the speed of an unladen swallow now? ”
No, Ftop, I wasn’t.
I was going to ask you about the air speed of an unladen European swallow. The air speed is the speed of the swallow , relative to the ground , plus or minus the wind speed. Just another reminder about the importance of reference frames.
* see reference to Archimedes at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus
Yes, ftop_t. There’s no point talking to him, as I said. He ignores anything of substance, spins anything he does respond to in the most ridiculous of ways, and falsely accuses you of all sorts of things. He also seems to always be performing to some imagined crowd that he believes is hanging on his every word. His ego is colossal, and he is so invested in this now that there’s no way he’s ever going to admit he was wrong.
Anyone with any sense understood what you meant by, "the Earth, in general, is a non-inertial frame because it rotates on its own axis and also orbits the Sun, but FOR THIS EXERCISE, it is considered the fixed point in an inertial frame."
“He ignores anything of substance..”
There was nothing of substance.
Tyson,
I have worked out why Ftop’s desmos elliptical orbit calculations are totally incorrect.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hohccm0s6t
As well as the obvious blunder of placing the Earth at the centre rather than at a focus , in his depiction , angular momentum is not conserved and as a consequence, Kepler’s 2nd law of equal areas is violated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
I understand Ftop does not understand addition of vectors so calculation of cross products would be well beyond him.
However as a hint for Ftop, if he had the Earth at the focus, then the instantaneous velocity (v) would be perpendicular to the vector joining the Earth to the Moon (r) and the magnitude of the angular momentum vector is then just mvr.
Hopefully Ftop can now fix up these major issues.
I hope this is a learning experience for Ftop, as it demonstrates the hazards of trying to solve problems geometrically while completely disregarding Physics.
“There was nothing of substance.”
Now, now. No need for that, Ball4.
Ball4 often has trouble following a discussion.
@MikeR,
Why do you always post links that prove me right?
First, it was the Purdue link. Now you post this?
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
Which @DREMT already posted December 13th
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571060
From Brown University
“5.1.2 Properties of Rigid Body Motion
In the following, we identify two properties of the motion of rigid bodies that simplify the kinematics significantly. In order to do this, observe that an arbitrary rigid body motion falls into one of the three categories:
CATEGORY 1
* Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
CATEGORY 2
*Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
CATEGORY 3
*General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
I have demonstrated that the motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation. This is obvious because I am using a rotation value “r”, “s”, “t” in every proof and that is the ONLY necessary value to model the movement.
As the Brown link references:
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.
If I declared that driving your car in a straight line is a general plane motion that is the sum of an infinite number of zero degree rotations and a linear transformation. It would be mathematically correct, but the motion falls into the category “translation”
If I declared that an orbiting object rotating around an external axis was a general plane motion that is the sum of an infinite number of translations and incremental axial rotations; it would be mathematically correct; but the motion falls into the category “rotation” because it can be completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
The logical matrix is
IF MOTION = TRANSLATION
CATEGORY 1
ELSIF MOTION = ROTATION
CATEGORY 2
ELSE
CATEGORY 3
You skipped the logic and declared every motion CATEGORY 3.
Yes Ftop, I post depictions that prove your geometry is correct, but your physics free interpretations are, excuse the French, totally f..ked
I am happy for you to continue in the present vein, using a non-inertial rotating frame of reference, if that keeps you happy.
However you will have trouble convincing any competent physicist that you can calculate the angular momentum and energetics for the situation below using just desmos and a rotating frame of reference. Particularly if you assert that the orbiting object is not rotating on its axis, see –
https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif
This is your challenge. It also depends on whether you believe A or B is the correct depiction.
Let’s see how you go.
p.s.
MOTION = ROTATION ABOUT A FIXED AXIS OF CENTRE OF MASS (CATEGORY 1 or 2 )* + ROTATION AROUND CENTRE OF MASS (CATEGORY 2).
IF MOTION = TRANSLATION
CATEGORY 1
ELSIF MOTION = ROTATION
CATEGORY 2
ELSE
CATEGORY 3
Answer CATEGORY 3 = TRUE
For CATEGORY 3 , for the specific case of rotation around the centre of mass in the same direction, at the same angular velocity (w) as the circular (not elliptical) motion of the centre of mass , then the criterion v = r.w (r and w = CONSTANT) is satisfied for all orbital angles otherwise v varies with angle. See once again for N = 1.
https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
and also for N = 1
https://postimg.cc/14MB5Sh5
* either CATEGORY 1 or 2 as both categories (see the Brown reference for definitions) refer to any point (CATEGORY 1) and all points (CATEGORY 2) in the object. The centre of mass is a single point ( with 2 degrees of freedom in the 2D world of desmos) that is normally within the object,** , and consequently automatically satisfies both, or either, criteria.
** I seem to recall that the Moon is not a hollow spherical object, but the contrarian nut case *** flat earthers may disagree.
*** not to be confused with the contrarian fruit cases, who may or not believe, in the allied flat earth theory.
Ftop_t absolutely nails it.
More specifically DREMT by “it” is meant ftop_t absolutely nails the geometry in an accelerated frame but bungles the inertial physics.
ftop_t also nails that in the inertial frame an object rotating on an external axis while rotating once on an internal axis per rev. keeps the same face toward the central object the entire time similar to a toy train, bolted wooden horse on a merry go round, ball on string, and Earth’s moon, all with day/night cycles while rotating on their own axis in sunshine.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Shut up you pathetic troll.
I observe I have upset DREMT by leaving out DREMT’s fav. inertial frame physics teacher Tesla. So, add to my list Tesla’s wheel assembly inertial frame view with “fixt” balls on the end of wheel spokes rotating once on each ball’s own internal axis per wheel external axis rev. keeping same face at center of rev. axle center while showing day/night cycles in the sunshine.
It is also possible I upset DREMT by leaving out DREMT’s doppleganger anGer’s race horse.
From the inertial reference frame as defined here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-597781
an object that keeps the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution, whilst it orbits, is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
If you liked the demo in this video then you agree that the VB equation here https://ibb.co/2cKnWvW describes the spin-orbit motion. Good for you then!
@Tyson,
The reason your equations are not correct is because rotational movement is unique from a simple translation. In particular, rotation is sign dependent based on the quadrant of the movement.
The top right of the Purdue link has an image that shows how the two angles effect the positional result for R(B/A) with respect to the origin
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!1087&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AJbiPIlJ2EBnGXA
I am assuming that “r” in your equation means radius
r(B) does not equal r(A) + r(B/A) because r(B) could be closer to the origin than r(A) at 180 degrees of rotation about the internal axis so unless spatial geometry supports negative radius lengths, this equation cannot be correct
I created this view of the two axis of rotation to illustrate the problem with multiple rotational movements (two axis in the case we are analyzing).
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ps23j20aj3
In this example “P” represents the farthest point on the rotating object (the dark side of the moon)
If you are having trouble orienting, you can click Line 40 on/off to see the circle.
Line Segment OA is from the origin to the center of the object (internal axis of rotation)
Line Segment AP is the radius of the rotating object r(A/B) in your equation
I added a green line from point “P” to the origin that represents r(B) radius to point “P”
For this example
OA always = 5 because we are using a circle of radius = 5 vs. elliptical
AP always = 1 because we are using a unit circle at axis point “A”
Triangle formulas can be used to find length
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_of_triangles#Solving_plane_triangles
Line 8 is square root of (a(sq) + b(sq)) this is the standard length formula for a right triangle and measures the distance from point “P” to the origin
Line 9 is the Side-Angle-Side formula and uses the change in the internal
Line 8 = Line 9 to validate the length of r(B)
I included both because it is the changing angle at axis “A” (the internal axis) that is critical to the resizing of r(B)
Starting at Line 2 = 0 and Line 5 = 0; Point “P” is at its farthest point from the origin.
As you move the slider (Line 5) point “P” has to get closer to the origin than the value r(A) + r(A/B) which starts at
r(A) = 5
r(B) = 1
r(A/B) = 6
Any increase in rotation (the angle at Point “A”) will shorten the distance from Point “P” to the origin.
IT HAS TO based on the triangle distance formulas
Therefore, a point on a rotating object will NEVER stay the same distance from the center of rotation if it is also rotating on an internal axis (Line 5)
The rotation around an external axis (for a circle) has no impact on the length of r(B). You can move the slider for external rotation (Line 2) to any value and the length of OP denoted as r(B) will not change.
If the moon was rotating on its own axis, a point on the object would have to get closer and further from the external center of rotation.
Move slider on Line 2 to any value, the green line stays constant – ONE EXTERNAL ROTATION
Move the slider on Line 5 to any value, the green line lengthens and shortens.
Therefore, an orbiting object CANNOT rotate on its own axis and keep a point at the same orientation to the origin (0,0) which is the center of orbital rotation.
To prove the object is rotating on an internal axis AND keeping the same face pointed at the origin; you have to be able to change Line 5 without changing the length of r(B).
That is not possible…and before you go there, changing the orbit to elliptical does not matter. The only difference is r(A) changes instead of holding constant, but the distance formulas still hold true (although there is a slight rounding discrepancy between Line 8 & Line 9)
ftop_t 9:17 AM
@Tyson,
I am assuming that “r” in your equation means radius
r(B) does not equal r(A) + r(B/A) because r(B) could be closer to the origin than r(A) at 180 degrees of rotation about the internal axis so unless spatial geometry supports negative radius lengths, this equation cannot be correct
Well, I started to read your comment hoping for some interesting stuff but didn’t even get past the second paragraph before my jaw dropped to the floor. I have to ask, have you really studied Maths?
Of course rB = rA + rB/A! It is simple vector addition, every High School graduate should know that.
Additionally, vectors have magnitude and direction, and depending on your choice of axes a vector can point in positive and negative directions, and does, during a rotation.
I’ll read the rest of your comment and reply if warranted. However, my comments will continue to go over your head if you don’t understand vectors and vector arithmetic. This revelation does explain why you keep making the same elementary errors.
ftop_t 9:17 AM
@Tyson,
Therefore, an orbiting object CANNOT rotate on its own axis and keep a point at the same orientation to the origin (0,0) which is the center of orbital rotation.
To prove the object is rotating on an internal axis AND keeping the same face pointed at the origin;
Please refer to this link https://ibb.co/xC9fns6 where I show how, and why, your comment above is wrong.
The linked images show two sets of unit vectors, one in a fixed frame, and the other in the accelerating frame centered on the Moon’s Center of Mass (CM).
Also shown are the two separate angular velocities defined by (1) the position vector to the CM in the fixed frame, and (2) the rotation angle of the unit vectors of the accelerating frame relative to the unit vectors of the fixed frame.
The linked image illustrates how:
The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
Tyson, an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always presents the same face towards that external axis, whilst it moves. Just be told. Many on your own side of the argument agree.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation 6:50 PM
Tyson, an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always presents the same face towards that external axis, whilst it moves.
I have already debunked that nonsense here, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-588827, using one of ftop-t’s many self-debunking “simulations.”
@MikeR has also debunked your BS here https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462)
No, you have not debunked anything. Nor has MikeR.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 7:28 AM
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
You’re the one that doesn’t understand. You keep explaining over and over again that the motion of e.g. a ball on a string can be described as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. You don’t seem to understand that we get that. What myself and ftop_t keep trying to get across to you is, it can also be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
It can also be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object observed from an accelerated frame for which neither ftop_t nor DREMT properly account basic physics as shown by at least MikeR and SGW.
…as shown by at least MikeR, SGW, and Tyson.
No, Ball4. Not from the accelerated frame. From the inertial reference frame.
Yes, Ball4 9:54 AM you are correct. However, D*R*E*M*T 10:04 AM reveals once again that he (and ftop_t) does not understand the distinction between an inertial and an accelerating frame of reference.
D*R*E*M*T 10:04 AM in my most recent debunk of your (and ftop_t’s) BS here https://ibb.co/xC9fns6, it is clear that an observer at point A on the accelerated frame does not see that his unit vectors i‘ and j‘ have rotated by Beta degrees from unit vectors i and j on the fixed frame.
Like I said, Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it isnt so.
Only if you treat the movement as a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass, Tyson.
The alternative is to treat the movement as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that it isn’t so. You’ll get there. Keep studying your superiors.
There is no rotation about the center of mass observed from the accelerated frame DREMT, you remain wrong about the “only”.
Tyson, the origin of the coriolis force in an accelerated frame will always be a mystery to DREMT and ftop_t until they learn the physics & perform proper experiments.
Poor DREMT is stuck, spinning his wheels, barking his unsupported slogans.
I’ve already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the ball whirling on a string does rotate on its own axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564609
DREMT could not dispute the math because he is incapable of understanding kinematic equations for velocity.
I’ve presented two example problems from university dynamics lecture notes where a ball welded to a rod is spun in the same manner as the ball on a string, and they prove the ball rotates on its own axis. This confused Tesla and his editor. Understanding these type of problems separates the men from the boys. In this case the men from the children.
Astronauts in the the space station showed a ball whirling on a string spin on its own axis upon release, confirming the ball was spinning on its own axis prior to release (Newton’s first law of motion)
Yet our three village idiots continue to bark their protestations, repeating the same unverified mantra to no avail. So sad. So pathetic.
Here’s a picture of DREMT after the velocity equations for two points on a rigid body was explained to him:
https://the-hollywood-gossip-res.cloudinary.com/iu/s–CrzOGSoi–/t_xlarge_l/cs_srgb,f_auto,fl_strip_profile.lossy,q_auto:420/v1454506522/attachment/little-girl-is-confused-gif.gif
“This confused Tesla and his editor.”
It didn’t confuse Tesla, only confused Tesla’s editor and translator. In Tesla’s wheel assembly, Tesla proves the ball rotates on its own axis once per orbit – same result as shown in SGW’s examples, by Tyson, and MikeR.
SGW, you’re the one that doesn’t understand. You keep explaining over and over again that the motion of e.g. a ball on a string can be described as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. You don’t seem to understand that we get that. What myself and ftop_t keep trying to get across to you is, it can also be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
This is what Tesla said in regards to his Figure 5:
If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible.
The problem with Tesla is he would say one thing and then debunk himself later.
DREMT does not understand that the ball on a string rotates on its own axis. That is what the math proves. You don’t “get” anything.
Sorry for your loss, SGW.
DREMT attempts to solve a kinematic velocity equation:
https://the-hollywood-gossip-res.cloudinary.com/iu/s–CrzOGSoi–/t_xlarge_l/cs_srgb,f_auto,fl_strip_profile.lossy,q_auto:420/v1454506522/attachment/little-girl-is-confused-gif.gif
SGW 1:26pm, Tesla is correct because he changes to observe the “fixt” balls from the accelerated frame “relatively to their axes” from which DREMT always observes. Tesla proved the balls still rotate once on their own axis per orbit observed from the inertial frame from conserved momentum.
From the inertial reference frame, the movement of the ball on a string etc. can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
Sure, when the object isn’t observed to rotate on its own axis in inertial frame.
But the ball on string and moon are both observed to rotate on their own axis once per orbit in the inertial frame, not an accelerated frame.
The only way the ball on a string etc can be rotating on its own axis in the inertial frame is if you describe its motion as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. Which would be an odd way to describe its movement, when you could just describe its motion as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Also from the inertial reference frame.
The way the ball on a string etc can be rotating on its own axis observed from the inertial frame is its motion is as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation on its own axis about that center of mass once per orbit as proved by at least Tesla, MikeR, Tyson and SGW.
Now you are getting it. Although, it would be an odd way to describe its movement, when you could just describe its motion as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Also from the inertial reference frame.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 2:26 PM
From the inertial reference frame, the movement of the ball on a string etc. can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.
I sure wish you would show the Math supporting this BS.
But you won’t! Because there is no way to show that the rotation of the accelerating frame by Beta degrees (https://ibb.co/xC9fns6) is zero and, at the same time, the same side of the Moon faces Earth.
Now you are getting it DREMT 3:34pm as ftop_t also proves observed from inertial frame the object can be rotating on its own axis when its motion is as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation on its own axis about that center of mass once per orbit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Now you are getting it, Ball4. Although, it would be an odd way to describe its movement, when you could just describe its motion as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Also from the inertial reference frame.
Since Ftop’s efforts to geometrically disinter the maggot filled corpse of an argument is proving to be a disaster, the defacto leader of the deranged zombies, General “anGer” has continued his campaign without his trusted lieutenants, who have fled the scene.
His only tactic is to just keep repeating the same commentary interminably. This is clearly part of a strategy to win a war of attrition by boredom and last man standing comments. To see “anGer” in action –
https://postimg.cc/qg99kCBM
The length of this campaign is now threatening to be longer than the duration of the First World War. I have offered him terms to cease hostilities but he rejects these due to his stubborn delusions of grandeur. Generalised “anGer” is clearly crazy as a coconut and needs this type of therapy –
https://youtu.be/qLrnkK2YEcE
I am not now, nor have I ever been, ger.an.
The team leader of the contrarian nut cases claims he is unrelated to ger.an (“anGer”).
The following is to provide some historical perspective regarding his claim.
This whole Moon fiasco has been going on since November 2017 ( for f… sake) when anGer , with the help of one or two others, started on this merry dance.
The only break from his nonsense was for the month of May 2018 when anGer was banned for his extreme trolling . In that month there was no mention of lunar rotation and only 30 or so comments, that discussed that other favourite obsession of anGer (the Rabbett plates).
The break from these discussions lasted briefly and only resumed in earnest when two ostensibly new contributors, with exactly the same obsessions, HuffnPuff and DREMT appeared within 3 days of each other in June 2018.
HuffnPuff, had a short life as a sock puppet as he was subsequently banned by Dr Spencer onky a year or two later for egregiously bad behaviour.
Taking a closer look at the evidence we can see that DREMT coincidentally happened to turn up on the scene within one month of anGer’s banning .DREMT adopted exactly the same obsessions, used the same bizarre logic, and adopted the same tactics as the deranGed individual (overuse of “PST” as a substitute for the overused “hilarious” by the previous incumbent). He also appears to have the same prolific commenting habits, posting at almost all hours of the day and night, and appears to reside in the same time zone as anGer.
You don’t have to be Hercule Point to work out that DREM is almost certainly anGer.
However i have to inject a note of caution as this is all circumstantial evidence .
Maybe it’s just a case of co-evolution where both DREMT and Huff independently arose from the primordial swamp with same prokaryotic neural genes as anGer..
However considering the infinite number of parallel universes, the odds of our universe having the misfortune to have two anGer clones spontaneously arise, so closely spaced in time, is extremely low.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell – to have one lunatically obsessed nut case in a universe maybe regarded as a misfortune, but to have two is sheer carelessness. Three would be a calamity, so it is almost certain that anGer metamorphosed into Huff and DREMT.
So DREMT, convince me otherwise. As a start, do you want to disown anGer’s views on thermodynamics? We can then move on to your common lunatic heritage.
Postscript to the above .
The inevitable accusation of being overly concerned with the team leader of the fruit cakes may well be true. I always find his delusions of grandeur, combined with his scientific illiteracy, annoying . He is also a serial pest that contributes almost nothing to any debate that he attempts to participate in.
Accordingly his only useful function is to defame by associated guilt, the side of the climate change debate that he purports to support. He does this task admirably.
You got the wrong guy. You have become desperately obsessed with the wrong individual. I have told you that repeatedly, but you never actually listen to what anybody says to you.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 2:26 PM
https://tinyurl.com/DREMT-Math
@TysonR,
You are REPLACING the orbital motion at (0,0) with an axial rotation at “A” and calling it a 1:1 orbital/axial rotation
https://ibb.co/xC9fns6
@MikeR and another of his pointless GIFs
https://i.postimg.cc/kJbFJNKs/Baseball3.gif
Do you believe that @MikeR’s pacman is ORBITING? (Yes or No)
Can you provide a rotational matrix calculation for every point in @MikerR’s moronic GIF? Because if it is orbiting, you will be able to.
In the link below, PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION to the black dotted line that shows the motion WITHIN the ACCELERATED FRAME where an AXIAL ROTATION must occur.
Regarding your formula
r(B) = r(A) + r(B/A)
Vector notation typically has an arrow over the letter, small “r” denotes radius in geometry, capital “R” denotes rotation
For simple notation, and since drawing a “->” above lettering is difficult on a blog, I will use
“A->” to denote vector “A”
“B->” to denote vector “B”
“B/A->”to denote vector “B/A”
Thus,
B-> = A-> + B/A->
I will start with two original vectors
A-> = (2,0)
B/A-> = (1,0)
Using vector addition
A-> + B/A-> [2] + [1]
[0]. +. [0]
B-> (3,0)
a(sq) + b(sq) = c(sq), thus length of B-> = 3 and point B is 3 units from the origin.
A-> represents the origin for the frame AXY
B-> represents a rotating point within the frame AXY (side of the moon)
When we rotate the frame by angle alpha we use the rotational matrix
R(alpha) A->XY = A->X’Y’
We use the rotational matrix
[ cos (alpha) – sin (alpha)] [x] = [x’]
[ sin (alpha) + cos (alpha)] [y] = [y’]
Using 90 degrees, and rules for Matrix multiplication we get
x*cos(90) – y*sin(90) = 2*0 – 0*1 = 0 so x’ is 0
x*sin(90) + y*cos(90) = 2*1 – 0*0 = 3 so y’ is 2
A->X’Y’ = (0,2)
Because B/A-> is within the frame AXY, it moves with the frame and its new vector is
B/A-> = (1,0)
Rotate (alpha) B/A-> = (0,1)
B/A->X’Y’ = (0,1)
Adding, A-> + B/A-> we get (0,3) and its length is still 3 units from the origin
If B/A-> rotates 90 degrees WITHIN frame A->XY along with the 90 degree rotation of the frame A->XY
Vector B/AX’Y’ -> is (0,1)
Rotate (beta) B/A
x*cos(90) – y*sin(90) = 0*0 – 0*1 = -1 so x’ is -1
x*sin(90) + y*cos(90) = 2*1 – 0*0 = 3 so y’ is 2
Adding, A-> + B/A-> we get (-1,2) and its length becomes 2.236
Point B is now closer to the origin than before meaning a different side is facing the origin
Fortunately, there is a tool that allows us to model these things easily which is exactly what I have been demonstrating for over a month:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/tvzsuop2ij
What you have to be able to prove is that you can change angle (beta) (In combination with any change in alpha)without the length of Point B becoming less than 3
Angle (alpha) is Line 2
Angle (beta) is Line 5
Because of the nature of rotational matrixes; this is not possible.
The only way to keep Point “B” in the proper orientation to (0,0) is to set the Rotational angle (beta) which represents AXIAL ROTATION to ZERO.
If you do not use ROTATIONAL formulas
You are translating an object -> NOT ORBITING the object
and then making an AXIAL rotation to realign the object because you did not ORBIT the object using ROTATIONAL movement.
Again, is PACMAN orbiting? If you answer “Yes” then you do not understand rotational movement.
“The only way to keep Point “B” in the proper orientation to (0,0) is to set the Rotational angle (beta) which represents AXIAL ROTATION to ZERO.”
No. Here, ftop_t again & repeatedly confuses an accelerated frame with an inertial frame. I note at 9:12am ftop_t avoids noting which frame is inertial and which frame is accelerated & expects the reader to do the work to figure out which is which. Properly written according to ftop_t’s own desmos demonstration:
“The only way to keep (non-zero radius) Point “B” in the proper orientation to (0,0) in the inertial frame is to set the Rotational angle (beta) which represents AXIAL ROTATION to ZERO in the accelerated frame.”
Proof is here where the object’s rotation on its own internal axis is zero in the accelerated frame attached to the object AND one object rotation on its own internal axis per external axis orbit in the inertial frame of black cartesian coordinates:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Just ignore Ball4, ftop_t. He is not to be taken seriously.
Ftop,
Are you on the Paleo diet? If so, your thinking matches your diet. Maybe up your carbs.
I assuredly used the rotation matrix for every pixel in the bitmap of the pacman to rotate it around its axis. How else do you think I could have done it *?
The linear segments of course are just programmed as linear translations.
“Again, is PACMAN orbiting **? If you answer Yes then you do not understand rotational movement ***”
The whole point of the exercise which clearly escapes you, because remarkably for a maths graduate you have no understanding of calculus, is that the “polygonally orbiting” pacman traversing N sided polygons, becomes a pacman that is orbiting **** in a circle for N = inf..
So Ftop, if the pacman is not rotating at each base so that it can continue on its journey in the direction of the next base, then w.t.f. do you think it is doing?
Ftop have you ever played baseball? If so you would never have got past first base.
p.s. your desmos code was mangled by WordPress. This is the problem I faced when I tried to extract your code.
* I could have done it in polar coordinates but that uses the equivalent polar transformed Cartesian rotational matrix.
** the pacman rotates on its axis 360/N degrees at each base and as the slope of the chord is tan(theta) , for N = inf. , the angle of rotation is just the angle of the tangent to the circle.
*** clearly Ftop doesn’t understand the orbital motion of two independent bodies that are free to rotate on their respective axes.
**** I think Ftop needs to broaden his maths education and read up on topics such as piecewise linear approximations. If he is ambitious could even read up on discrete or continuous decomposition of curves using different basis functions.
On the matter of sock puppet identity politics.
With his protestations of innocence above, the team leader of the contrarian fruit cakes protesteth too much*. He sounds like a father who denies paternity in face of an unequivocal DNA test.
Alternatively he sounds like the notorious Mike F pretending that he has no relation to his various sproglets, despite overwhelming evidence** to the contrary.
* it is entirely understandable not wanting to be identified as the deranGed culprit who started this nonsense.
** reams of evidence can be supplied if necessary.
OK, MikeR. Think what you like.
In combination with the validation by vector addition that there is no rotation around an internal axis, the angular velocity would vary if two rotations were occurring.
In the Purdue examples,
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!1087&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AJbiPIlJ2EBnGXA
The “View from Fixed Ground”; shows an inward “petal” shape as Point P gets closer and further from the origin as it rotates around axis “A”
These “petals” indicate places where the linear velocity (tangential to the rotation) of the primary axis “O” and the secondary axis “A” are in opposing directions.
Point “P” slows as it traverses these small petals and then accelerates as it moves away from the origin “O”
If there are two rotations, this slowing and speeding will occur because with axial rotation (internal) there will always be points on the object rotating in a direction opposite to the orbital rotation.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mu90xmmlil
This view adds tangential lines to represent angular velocity converting to linear. The red and green tangential lines in this view demonstrate this phenomenon.
The red line indicates the angular velocity of the axial rotation as a linear vector
The green line indicates the angular velocity of the orbital rotation as a linear vector
While the magnitudes would be based on the radius “r” of each rotation (v= rw); the petal shape emerges because in rotational movement, opposing linear velocity vectors (derived from the angular velocity) cause this phenomenon.
These tangential lines show that axial rotation would result in varying points being closest to the orbital axis.
“The linear segments of course are just programmed as linear translations.”
There are no linear segments in an orbital motion – EVER…EVER…EVER. If your model has linear segments it is not an orbit.
When a linear segment occurs, it signifies the end of orbiting and the object disengages from its relationship with the chosen external axis.
Angular momentum doesn’t start and stop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
“The orbital angular momentum of an object about a chosen origin is defined as the angular momentum of the centre of mass about the origin. The total angular momentum of an object is the sum of the spin and orbital angular momenta”
Admitting there are linear segments means it is not an orbit; which of course was again my point when I stated CORRECTLY
“You are translating an object -> NOT ORBITING the object
and then making an AXIAL rotation to realign the object because you did not ORBIT the object using ROTATIONAL movement.”
Ftop,
Before you continue any further you should install an abstraction layer to your brain by a firmware upgrade. This is a significant upgrade as you should then be capable of running the following modules, which can be downloaded and installed sequentially. The modules are versions 1.0 of Understanding Calculus, Physics for Beginners and Introduction to Astronomy modules.
Once you have successfully tested that these additional modules are working, you may get the error message “MCD n” which indicates multiple (n) cognitive dissonance errors. A work around for this error is to temporarily disable your inbuilt geometry module.
After working with only one module for so long, the introduction of further modules that provide conflicting information, can create great stress for the geometry module, which can then lead to burn out of the module, so do not disregard this message.
If the problem persists, a soft reset, via rest and recuperation, followed by quiet contemplation is recommended, .A hard reset is not recommended under any circumstances, as you may blue screen.
If all else fails R.T.F.M..
If there is still a problem, please return the geometry module to the manufacturer with the message – Logic Board Failure.
Slightly more serious comments to follow….
Ftop,
On a more serious note, I finally have to congratulate you. You finally have said something that makes sense (except for a minor error in terminology).
“… the angular velocity* would vary if two rotations were occurring.”
Yes the velocity does vary as the arms OA and AP rotate.
The expressions for the x and y coordinates of AP are simply given by,
APx = OA.cos (Woa) +AP. cos (Wap)
APy = OA .sin (Woa) + AP. sin(Wap)
Where OA and AP are the lengths of each arm and Woa and Wap are the angular velocities of the relevant arm.
The velocity components are just the time derivatives of APx and APy and consequently given by,
Vx = -OA sin (Woa) -AP. N.sin(Wap) where N = Wap/Woa
Vy = OA .cos (Woa) + AP. N. cos (Wap)
The magnitude of the velocity is of course just
V = ( Vx^2 + Vy^2) ^1/2
Here is a screen capture of an Excel spreadsheet showing the variation in velocity as it varies through one rotation of the arm OA.
https://i.postimg.cc/69f9nfZh/Purdue-N-4-Velocity.jpg
As you can see the speed of AP varies between 2 and 6 units per second.
So QED that two rotations are occurring as the velocity “would vary if two rotations were occurring.”
Totally unsurprising of course.
Next….
* I am sure Ftop means velocity.
Regarding ftop_t 9:12 AM I’m in full agreement with MikeR 6:41 PM .
I will add first, in the future you should dispense with the basics; we already know how to add vectors by the component method, although you don’t seem to be aware of the triangle [or parallelogram] rule of vector addition which is implicit in my link here https://ibb.co/xC9fns6.
Second, “Vector notation typically has an arrow over the letter” is only partially true since it is also customary to indicate vectors in boldface type which I was careful to do in my post by using rA for example; vectors may also be indicated by underlining. The fact that you were triggered by this is further proof that you have not formally studied vectors and have only wiki level knowledge of the subject.
Third, you ask “is PACMAN orbiting?” Of course it is; it is undergoing general plane motion in which the translation occurs in the plane of the fixed reference frame and the rotation occurs about an axis perpendicular to the reference plane within the rotating frame.
Fourth, I am encouraged to see you agree that “we rotate the frame by angle alpha” as possibly slowly but surely you are starting to get it.
Ftop,
Once again, you are taking things too literally with
“There are no linear segments in an orbital motion EVEREVEREVER. If your model has linear segments it is not an orbit.”
For the polygon motion of the pacman , for N less than infinity the polygon is an APPROXIMATION to a circular orbit that becomes progressively close to a circle as N approaches infinity
True circular orbital motion is when the number of sides of the polygon is infinite ( with zero chord lengths).
The shared closure properties of a polygon and circle, allow inference of the rotation at each of the vertices of a polygon to be extended to the infinite number of vertices of a circle.
I had hoped you would have some insight after my earlier explanation but the following reference may explain it better than I can from a geometric perspective.
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/joma/Volume7/Aktumen/Polygon.html
Anyway here is the polygon pacman again.
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
In this depiction, the final polygon shown has N =128 sides and the polygon closely approximates a circle. If I had gone to 256 , 512 or greater sides then it would be indistinguishable from a circle.
p.s. the good news is that you do not dispute that the pacman rotates on its axis at each base*, irrespective of the number of bases. Consequently it will not take a great leap in understanding for you to extrapolate this to the circular case.
*I know it is unbelievable, but the contrarian fruit cakes even disputed this on a prior occasion. As they say, there are none so blind than those who will not see.
Yes, it is unbelievable, MikeR. Because that did not occur. Nobody denied that the pacman rotates on its own axis at each base.
MikeR, DREMT denies Earth’s moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit where as DREMT admittedly does not deny your pacman rotates on its own axis at each base for one full rotation on pacman’s own internal axis per external axis orbit at inf. orbit segments (or at least .GT. 512 segments) all observed in the inertial frame.
I suggest a change in your art of pacman to an Earth’s moon depiction running your bases for slow of mind commenters such as DREMT and the other three ring circus entertainers that are unable to make a certain connection.
Further to ftop_t 9:12 AM
you say ” If B/A-> rotates 90 degrees WITHIN frame A->XY along with the 90 degree rotation of the frame A->XY”
You keep ignoring the basic fact that from the point of view of an observer located at point A nothing is moving ( https://ibb.co/8YWqTX2), he doesn’t even know his frame of reference is rotating.
Your statement above says that, if after point A travels 90 degrees (your alpha), if point B has traveled 180 degrees, then the rotation speed is twice the orbit speed, as observed from the origin of the inertial frame.
Ball4, all MikeR’s pacman shows is that, once again, the motion of an object moving like the ball on a string etc, with the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution, can be described as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. This was already known and understood and agreed long before ger.an raised the issue on this blog over three years ago.
What various commenters have been trying to get across since then, and I lose count at how many agree with the Non-Spinners now but it is well into the double figures, is that the same motion can also be described as one single movement, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object itself. And that this is the correct way to define orbital motion.
Ball4 will now respond by copying part of what I said, but changing the words in some way.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 1:08 PM
the same motion can also be described as one single movement, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object itself.
Wrong. Ftop_t’s latest simulations have demonstrated how, and why, you must account for the two angular speeds.
I know I’m right.
Sure DREMT 1:08pm, given two frames of reference both observations are true & correct. The commenter needs to specify from which frame is the observation. Earth’s moon’s rotation on its own axis once per orbit as observed in the inertial frame is as shown here by ftop_t:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
“I know I’m right.”
Correct, no rotation on the object’s own axis as observed from the accelerated frame attached to the object.
Not from the accelerated (rotating) frame…again, someone located in the accelerated frame would observe no motion of the object whatsoever. From the inertial reference frame, the movement of the ball on the string etc can be described as one single motion, a rotation about a fixed, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object. From the “translating” reference frame (i.e. MikeR’s little boxes) the object appears to be rotating on its own axis.
“someone located in the accelerated frame would observe no motion of the object whatsoever.”
No, that observer sees the object is translating as it passes by stuff like when you are driving your car.
“From the inertial reference frame, the movement of the ball on the string etc can be described as one single motion, a rotation about a fixed, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object.”
No. ftop_t demonstrated from the inertial reference frame cartesian coordinates, the movement of the ball on the string etc. can be described as a rotation about a fixed, external axis, with one rotation on internal axis of the object per orbit like Earth’s moon:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Completely wrong, Ball4. The ball on a string etc. is not rotating about both an external and internal axis. You have two options, from the inertial reference frame:
1) The center of mass of the object is translating in a circle, and the object is rotating about its center of mass.
2) The whole object is rotating about the external axis (and not about its own center of mass).
Poor DREMT is stuck with his description slogans again. We use kinematic equations to solve kinematic problems, you idiot. Provide a solution to an actual ball/string problem or STFU. You won’t because you don’t know how. You are a complete idiot, that’s why.
You keep yapping the same wrong nonsense over and over. You can’t be taken seriously because you never SOLVE anything, just like the clown ClintR.
…but what really gets you mad is that deep down, you know I’m right.
https://i.gifer.com/3VjS.gif
The team leader of the contrarian lunatics stated above earlier today –
“Yes, it is unbelievable, MikeR. Because that did not occur. Nobody denied that the pacman rotates on its own axis at each base.”
I guess his account must have been hacked a couple of months ago. Maybe Ftop can advise him on security, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516094
and repeated multiple times in the thread.
Alternatively he may have at last learnt something. I can hear the Hallelujah Chorus in the background, so maybe this is the case.
Can the leader of the fruit cakes get to the stage where he understands the final stage of the polygon/circle proof?
I doubt it, as he will almost certainly change tack and get his rotating balls (on a string) in a twist.
However you never know, as the saying goes “if you have got them by the balls, the mind will follow”.
Ball4,
I have changed the pacman baseball simulation to an appropriate Moon like object. As a visual aid, for the wilfully blind, I have added a red line to show the orientation with respect to the “orbital path” and a green line to demonstrate that the moon is fixed in orientation to the pitcher’s mound*/Earth.
https://i.postimg.cc/gdrHWJHk/Lunar-Baseball.gif
*The Man in the Moon likes to “steal” bases so he always wants to keep an eye on the pitcher.
MikeR, you really need to learn how to read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516516
Yes, oh great leader of the fruit cakes, I can read, but I have trouble with Orwellian double speak.
From yesterday –
Yes, it is unbelievable, MikeR. Because that did not occur. Nobody denied that the pacman rotates on its own axis at each base.
Here are your first two identical entries on the orbiting baseball player from August this year.
“So theystillhavent learned the difference between the two motions. MikeR, an orbit, or revolution, is just a rotation about an external axis. There is no axial rotation involved, which is what you are implying with your baseball GIF.”
The rest of your comments at that time were just reiteration of the above with different levels of verbosity and recursive links.
So yes, there has been great progress by the great team leader as he now accepts axial rotation is involved.
This shift of position by the glorious leader should not be seen as a point of criticism, as it shows that there is a small possibility that he is intelligent enough to move from anGry denial to acceptance (I am being highly optimistic* here) .
* Realistically he is never going to budge , due to his emotional over-investment in his crackpot theory.
When you invest over 3 years of your life, with tens of thousands of comments (over 650 this month alone) then meek acceptance is always going to be very difficult. AnGer is most likely to continue with trademark repetitions and, of course with more balls and strings.
MikeR, you apparently cannot read. Or you read whatever what you want to see into what other people write. I have never disputed that the pacman rotates on its own axis at each base. I also have no problem understanding your argument. Never have. I just disagree that it proves the moon rotates on its own axis. I explained why already.
MikeR, thank you for so humorously showing slow minded commenter DREMT squirming in denial of generally accepted observed physics over time.
Now DREMT, the Chief cfc, squirms around his own 8:20am admission: nobody denied that the moon (i.e. pacman) rotates on its own axis at each base since DREMT now changes up to write “I have never disputed that the pacman (i.e. MikeR’s moon) rotates on its own axis at each base.”
Lol, DREMT cannot keep his stories straight with his bogus physics. DREMT is the abominable no man. Again, like MikeR, ftop_t also demonstrated from the inertial reference frame cartesian coordinates, the movement of the ball on the string, Earth’s moon etc. is observed as a rotation about a fixed, external axis, with one rotation on internal axis of the particular object:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Also this is observed from the accelerated frame attached to the object in ftop_t’s demo. as DREMT correctly writes:
“The whole object is rotating about the external axis (and not about its own center of mass).”
Ball4 often has trouble following a discussion.
D*R*E*M*T, it wasn’t that long ago gave us this little gem: “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.” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548213
Comparing that to what he is now saying and it’s hard to decide whether he Is the most disingenuous, or the dumbest of all the non-spinners. Maybe he is both!
Either way he’s obviously trying to play both sides of the court.
Tyson, there is no difference between what I said then and what I am saying now. As I said only a few comments ago:
“…all MikeR’s pacman shows is that, once again, the motion of an object moving like the ball on a string etc, with the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution, can be described as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. This was already known and understood and agreed long before ger.an raised the issue on this blog over three years ago.
What various commenters have been trying to get across since then, and I lose count at how many agree with the Non-Spinners now but it is well into the double figures, is that the same motion can also be described as one single movement, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object itself. And that this is the correct way to define orbital motion.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 10:24 AM
It was a multiple choice, not an essay question. Based on your reply the answer is clear though: the dumbest!
DREMT writes:
1) “Nobody denied that the pacman rotates on its own axis at each base.”
2) “the same motion can also be described as one single movement, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass”
So, yes Tyson, as you write about DREMT: “Either way he’s obviously trying to play both sides of the court.”, playing fom two different frames (courts) no matter DREMT’s objections:
1) inertial frame view,
2) accelerated frame view.
Since the discussion has descended into one long personal attack on yours truly, I guess you guys are conceding. I acknowledge your concession.
Ball4 12:30 PM
Yes, poor D*R*E*M*T has lost his (her) bearings, and his (her) Math doesn’t add up either! https://tinyurl.com/DREMT-Math
I acknowledge your concession.
The confused contrarian asserts above -“that this is the correct way to define orbital motion.”
This is tautologically correct only for the specific case for the motion of a point object in a circular orbit, otherwise it is nonsense.
For an extended object it should include the possibility of axial rotation of the object itself.
For an elliptical orbit the rotation rate is variable and the radius is also variable, so the above is again irrelevant.
Anyway, the glorious team leader (the bullshit artist formerly known as anGer) , like Donald J Trump, never accepts defeat graciously and has gone very defensive.
“Since the discussion has descended into one long personal attack on yours truly, I guess you guys are conceding. I acknowledge your concession”
Not only does he have no understanding of math and physics, he is a terrible guesser.
He will, probably demand a recount of the number of trademark “please stop trolling” and “hilarious” comments he has made over the past 3 years.
p.s. I will even beat him to the punch with a heartfelt “sorry about your loss/ concession” .
MikeR, orbital motion is just a rotation of the body about an external axis. It is actually defined that way. See the wikipedia entry on “Rotation” for instance:
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. 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.”
Yes, context free semantics tries to ride to the rescue of the team leader of the contrarian crackpots.
I of course, agree with the Wiki , that an orbit can be considered to be rotation about an external axis. Note, no mention of a single rotation which is the basis of Ftop’s argument.
In general, an orbit can be decomposed into multiple rotations of varying orbital rates and varying radii about a common external axis.
However a sequence of single rotations of fixed radius and constant angular velocity only works for a rotating point . Similarly, a single rigid extended object can be decomposed into single rotations of about an internal axis for a constant angular velocity. This is just spinning as per the Moon or any other object rotating on its axis.
None of this EXCLUDES the description of orbital motion, for an extended object, as comprising a rotation of the centre of mass of the object accompanied by a second rotation about the centre of mass (sorry to shout but anGer appears to be deaf as well as blind).
p.s. The whole concept of centre of mass for a rotating object is familiar to anyone who has done some basic physics*. A classical example is a rotating object accelerating down an an inclined plane see
See https://youtu.be/gj9H1Ti4yc0 and
https://www.wired.com/2014/07/a-rolling-object-accelerating-down-an-incline/
Another case is the diver who rotates about the centre of mass while translating in a parabolic path see –
https://postimg.cc/xkg4zgr9
These are all examples of general plane motion where centre of mass is commonly used for analysis, see –
http://mechanicsmap.psu.edu/websites/12_newtons_rigid_body/general_planar_motion/general_planar_motion.html
* the team leader should have taken the Physics elective. In the off chance he did take Physics, he should have listened to the teacher and taken careful notes, instead of ending up with a notebook full of scrawled dick graffiti.
AnGer above-“never disputed that the pacman rotates on its own axis at each base. I also have no problem understanding your argument.”
Anyway, after a brief digression , we know that anGer now accepts that the baseball playing pacman rotates on his axis and also understands the argument about the relationship between the polygon orbit and the circular orbit.
Unless , from left field anGer can bring to the table a brand new reason* to refute the argument that the circular orbiting pacman, is actually rotating on his axis, then I think he should be getting his resignation speech ready.
If he is quick enough he could get a pardon on the grounds of temporary ( only 3 years) mental impairment. Time is running out.
* unfortunately repetition of simple slogans and standard avoidance procedures, via digressions etc.., will not cut it any more.
“None of this EXCLUDES the description of orbital motion, for an extended object, as comprising a rotation of the centre of mass of the object accompanied by a second rotation about the centre of mass (sorry to shout but anGer appears to be deaf as well as blind).”
No. You mean a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. And that is not a description of purely orbital motion. It would be a description of orbital motion plus axial rotation, from the Spinner perspective. You can’t get this through your head, can you?
Spinners see orbital motion as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass of the object, in a circle or ellipse. Motion like the Hubble Telescope when focussed on a distant star. Axial rotation is then separate from this motion.
Non-Spinners see orbital motion as a single rotation of the whole object about an external axis, in a circle or ellipse. Motion like the ball on a string etc, or moon. Axial rotation is then separate from this motion.
As for the pacman argument…it was already refuted at the time, MikeR. You can think of an object that is moving in a circle, with the same face always oriented towards the center of that circle, as being broken up into an infinite number of translations of the center of mass plus infinitesimal rotations on its own axis. Or, you can think of the object as moving in one single rotation about an axis in the center of the circle. The latter fits with the definition of orbital motion. The former does not. Refutation over.
Physically motion like the Hubble Telescope rotating once on its own internal axis per orbit of external axis by automatic controllers when focused on a distant galaxy in the inertial frame. Axial rotation on on its onw internal axis is then included in this motion by those controllers.
Physics shows one can think of the latter object as moving in one single rotation about an external axis in the center of the circle in the accelerated frame.
MikeR 5:55 PM
“This is tautologically correct only for the specific case for the motion of a point object in a circular orbit, otherwise it is nonsense.”
D*R*E*M*T obviously does not understand the difference between rotation of a point mass and rotation of a rigid body. Or, it could be that having said in the past “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 http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549502,” doesn’t want to admit he was wrong then too.
P.s.: a point mass has three degrees of freedom (X, Y, and Z). A rigid body has six degrees of freedom (X, Y, Z, plus 3 rotation angles).
Good find, Tyson. Keep quoting, keep learning.
“…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.”
Absolutely correct. The wooden horse on the carousel is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 7:31 AM
This next one demonstrates D*R*E*M*T’s belief that a rotating frame is an inertial frame.
“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” https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549411
Good times!
Tyson, MikeR’s “little boxes on the left” are not the “rotating” reference frame. If anything, you could describe them as the “translating” reference frame. It is a frame that translates along with the object, whilst remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. Keep quoting, keep learning.
@mikeR says:
“For the polygon motion of the pacman , for N less than infinity the polygon is an APPROXIMATION to a circular orbit that becomes progressively close to a circle as N approaches infinity”
Yup, it is not circular motion, but an approximation
“True circular orbital motion is when the number of sides of the polygon is infinite ( with zero chord lengths).”
Nope, true circular orbital motion is when all points revolve around an EXTERNAL axis at distances = d(theta) * r where for any given point, r = radius from the axis of rotation.
Even when chord lengths become zero, the angular velocity is derived from the radius to the center of the orbit and not the radius of the axial rotation.
“The shared closure properties of a polygon and circle allow inference of the rotation at each of the vertices of a polygon to be extended to the infinite number of vertices of a circle.”
As I have said all along, you are inferring an axial rotation because your model is an approximation
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584247
If the motion is an axial rotation, you should be able to derive the angular velocity WITHOUT knowing the radius from a point on the object to the origin. You would only need to know the radius to the rotational center of the axis.
angular velocity is (w = the rate of change of the angle in radians)
w = d(theta)/d(time)
d(theta) is the arc length
We can convert this to a linear velocity:
v = wr
In the example I showed:
radius of the orbit for “B” WITHOUT AXIAL ROTATION remains at 3 units from the origin and 1 unit from the axial rotation at “A”
Thus, if the motion is an orbital rotation around (0,0)
v=3r for the orbital motion I modeled
What is the angular velocity for the axial rotation for pacman without using the radius to the origin?
Is this value equivalent to 3r?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 9:47 AM
Tyson, MikeR’s “little boxes on the left” are not the “rotating” reference frame. If anything, you could describe them as the “translating” reference frame. It is a frame that translates along with the object, whilst remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. Keep quoting, keep learning.
D*R*E*M*T clearly misread Isaac Newton’s First Law!
Hint: The First Law stipulates an Inertial Frame.
Tyson is now so obsessed with me he doesn’t even register that ftop_t has commented.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 1:13 PM
Evades and deflects again rather than address whether he understands,
a) The difference between rotation of a point mass and that of a rigid body and how many degrees of freedom define each movement.
b) The difference and need for inertial vs non-inertial frames when describing the moon’s spin-orbit.
Tyson, I don’t care whether you believe I understand reference frames, or anything else for that matter. Personally, I don’t believe you understand, because you called what is represented by MikeR’s little boxes “the rotating frame”. As I said, that is not the rotating reference frame.
Oh my goodness Ftop,
you are totally confused between orbital motion for an extended object and rotation about a fixed axis, possibly due to a lack of understanding of reference frames or not having studied Physics or Engineering. Maybe read this if you don’t have time to return to study.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
For general plane motion the object does not in general obey v = r.w (when the origin is the centre of the orbit). The single exception being when a object is rotating once per orbit in the same direction as the orbit see the concentric circular paths here for the N =1 case in the following-
https://i.postimg.cc/k70FhzKg/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif
In the reference frame of the centre of mass (with the origin at the centre of mass) then we get v = r.w irrespective of the relative rates of the rotation w.r.t. orbital rate. This is single fixed axis rotation (fixed in the centre of mass frame).
With respect to the relationship between a polygon and circle, what can I say? Dealing with you has been exhausting, so I think you need to take up your objections with Archimedes directly or alternatively take a course on calculus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion
p.s. I agree with your calculations that v = 3.r with respect to the inertial frame for N = 1, see –
https://i.postimg.cc/ZZWzTC3f/V-equals3-R-N-equals1.jpg
AnGer,
“… The latter fits with the definition of orbital motion. The former does not. Refutation over.”
The latter fits but where is reference that the former does not? Again it is not an either/or situation!
How many times* does it have to be explained to you that alternative descriptions exist? The former is more general in that can account for extended objects that can rotate independently of the orbital motion while the latter is a perfectly correct description for the orbital component of a celestial body’s motion. This is the obvious context of the Wiki’s reference to orbital motion.
* the answer my friend, is “Blowin in the Wind” ( downstream of the bloviating blowhard).
I will not be responding to posts addressed to the name anGer, as I have already told you that I am not ger.an. Not that there is anything worth responding to in your latest comments anyway.
You are wrong.
I am right.
That is the end of it.
It appears I have hit a raw nerve and some anGer* management is required.
I will accordingly in future, try to remember to refer to anGer, with his previous and well deserved name, as the Team Leader of the Contrarian Fruit Cakes (TLCFC). This is appropriate as this total fruit cake is in desperate need of some TLC.
However, if on occasions I forget, please forgive, as TLCFC has conveniently forgotten and disowned his own origins.
* he is at stage 3 of trying dealing with the terminal state of his crackpot argument. He managed to do this without getting past denial. Will he ever get to acceptance? Only 4 more stages to go.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-597858
Poor DREMT is either crying or yelping nonsense slogans.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-24-2015/W3YfvN.gif
https://media3.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/source.gif
It’s already been mathematically proven the ball on a string rotates on its own axis. Same thing with a horse running a circular track.
All DREMT ever does is repeat his mantra, without proof whatsoever. He just declares himself a winner like a baby.
SGW still thinks a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis! And he thinks it has been proven mathematically! Lol.
#2
Spinners are “rotation around a fixed axis” deniers.
@Tyson
In this comment you have applied one (1) rotation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584954
This is EXACTLY what I addressed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-583787
Every GIF that @Mike posts has a small box that assumes the moon is at the center of the rotation
His small boxes lack a line pointing to the center of rotation creating the illusion that there is an axial rotation inside of frame AX’Y’
If he added the radius to the rotation, it would become obvious the Earth is now rotating about a fixed frame AX’Y’
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ys2au7gpv
What makes his GIFs even more absurd is he has a compass for North (ha!ha!). Where is North in a view of the Earth/Moon system looking at the rotational model.
Hint: it is at the origin (0,0) and if his GIF was accurate the small frame would rotate to keep the same side pointing to the origin.
I have agreed on equivalence numerous times. One can steal the rotation from O’ use it to rotate inside frame AX’Y’ and then translate the object somewhere else; but you are no longer translating the entire AX’Y’ frame.
Within the comment I linked to, I stated clearly:
“While a translation and axial rotation is an equivalent way to move to a specific location; it is still a single rotation model.
To translate the moon 180 degrees from its location, the process would be:
Go to Line 2 and move it from +10 to -10
Go to Line 35 and rotate the internal axis 180 degrees
A translation & a rotation on its axis.
The problem is the orbital location as designated by the orange line still points to point (10,0)
Reset A=10, and Line 5 and Line 35 to zero
Now break the translation up into parts.
Change A=0
Rotate Line 5 180 degrees
Change A back to 10
The shape has translated from (10,0) to (-10,0) and rotated 180 degrees; but the orbital rotation has been used as an internal axis rotation”
Astronomy employs orientation and translation because the entire universe is moving. It is a valid calculation model to LOCATE a celestial body at an epoch (point in time); but it is not a model for how the objects move with respect to one another. Within frame AXY that includes the external axis rotation centered about the origin and an object rotating about the origin; You cannot include BOTH a rotation of the AX’Y’frame about the origin AND a rotation of the object WITHIN frame AX’Y’
That is what a 1:1 resonance implies. You ONLY get one (1) rotation. You can use it against the external axis (0,0) and there is no need to translate OR you can translate the object and then turn it on its axis to match its new orientation.
You cannot rotate the object WITHIN AX’Y’ AND orbit the object about (0,0) – which would be two rotations in resonance – and get an accurate location and orientation.
The other option, like @MikeR, is you can pretend the origin for the universe is within the AX’Y’ frame, hold it static, and let the universe revolve around it. Truly Ptolemaic
ftop_t 8:07 AM
It’s going to take me a while to read your comment and prepare a sensible reply; meanwhile you should read and cogitate on my comment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585572
I know you want to understand the issue from the geometric-algebraic perspective, but I urge you to not forget the Physics context. I say this because I don’t understand your statement here “Astronomy employs orientation and translation because the entire universe is moving. It is a valid calculation model to LOCATE a celestial body at an epoch (point in time); but it is not a model for how the objects move with respect to one another.
You do understand that the Moon is a rigid body sitting in the vacuum of space, orbiting Earth at the behest of Earth’s gravitational force. That same force, acting over 4.5 billion years, has slowed down the Moon’s primordial spin to 1:1 from something much larger. That same spin caused the Moon to have a strong magnetic field, the remnants of which have been measured in rock samples brought back by the Apollo missions.
As you should know, scientific truth is a multiply connected web. The Physics, Math and observations should all lead you to the same conclusion. How can you say that Astronomy gives an answer that differs from the Math? Impossible.
Read and understand the comment, then respond.
No need for you to keep responding to me.
Sure there is. Eventually you may learn to acknowledge the existence of rotation around a fixed axis.
Ask and ye shall receive!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Solar_system_bodies_rotation_animation.svg
Happy now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
Read the bolded line 100 times before you go to sleep each night. Maybe it will sink in.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 12:30 PM
I see that you are now trying to deflect away from the question Does the Moon rotate? because you’ve lost that argument and, you now want to argue the Kinematics definition of Purely rotational motion.
Look at row 3 column 1 before you go to sleep each night. Maybe it will sink in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Solar_system_bodies_rotation_animation.svg
No, Tyson. The question has always been, does the moon rotate on its own axis.
The moon does rotate…about the Earth/moon barycenter..,and not about its own center of mass.
NASA Website
Q: Does the Moon rotate?
A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
Obfuscate all you want. NASA’s got our backs.
After three years D*R*E*M*T continues to pretend he doesn’t know the difference between orbit and rotation. Typical non-spinner wanting to play both sides of the court!
An “orbit” is just another word for a rotation about an external axis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. 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.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 2:21 PM
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.” Unless you are describing the fact that The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth.
Precision of language is a cornerstone of science.
The argument being made is that the moon is only rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (orbiting), and not rotating on its own axis. Because an object that rotates around an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same side of the body oriented towards the center of revolution.
No. See here for the right answer from ftop_t:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Yes, see ftop_t’s post, Tyson. It shows an object rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis. As you can see from the fact that when you initially click on the link, only the external axis rotation slider is moving, and not the internal axis rotation slider.
It shows an object rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis in the accelerated frame slider used in 31 confusing DREMT.
Both sliders can be used simultaneously and the results seen in the inertial reference frame.
Correct.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 3:00 PM
You believe that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis and that is the reason we always see approximately the same side as it orbits Earth. That is because you do not understand the geometry and algebra of rotating frames within fixed frames. Got it.
In fact, you have described your belief as a “non-spinner 0:1” something or other, not understanding that at 0:1 the Moon would show all sides to Earth.
The reality is that The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
We all have read and understood your confusion.
With only the external axis rotation slider moving, one side of the object remains oriented towards the center of revolution, from the inertial reference frame.
Yes. Now you get it DREMT. Just like Earth’s moon.
DREMT as I wrote now agrees see Fig. 2(b) “rotation” motion about internal axis once per orbit, concentric circles which ftop_t puts into motion here with concentric ~circles illustrated (green,blue,red). Example: ~Earths moon staring at Earth
Exactly, Ball4. With only the external axis rotation slider moving.
If you start the object rotating on its own axis, as well, by moving the internal axis rotation slider whilst the external axis rotation slider is moving, then you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
Ball4 4:00 PM
Yes. Now you get it DREMT. Just like Earth’s moon.
A miracle!
“DREMT as I wrote now agrees see Fig. 2(b) “rotation” motion about internal axis once per orbit”
No, Ball4. Fig. 2(b) shows the rectangle rotating about point O, the external axis, and not about the internal axis.
Yes, Tyson, just like Earth’s moon, the object in ftop_t’s desmos example has one side always facing towards the center of revolution. Because it is rotating about the external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
Fig. 2(b) shows the rectangle rotating about point O, the external axis, and not about the internal axis observed in the accelerated rectangle frame just like ftop_t shows here for the accelerated triangle frame:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Both triangle and rectangle rotate on their own internal axis once per orbit observed in the inertial frame.
Neither triangle nor rectangle rotate on their own internal axis observed in the inertial frame. You have a real, fundamental problem with understanding rotation, Ball4. An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves. There are even Spinners who agree with that statement. Would you like me to link to an example?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
It is TRUE for the accelerated frame, Nate simply reveals his observation location.
You are just trolling again.
Poor DREMT continues with yelping his stupid slogans, never able to submit mathematical proof whatsoever:
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/giphy.gif
“Stupid slogans” that even one of my biggest critics said was “TRUE”.
@Tyson
As a follow-up to this review of translation/rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-587911
I wanted to address the AXY vs. AX’Y’ discussion above
This zoomed in view shows the AX’Y’ frame
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/u8ptncektu
If there is a 1:1 orbital to axial rotation resonance, than you should be able to:
Move Slider 2 and Slider 5 the same amount and the red dot will remain the farthest point from the origin
The red dot is at (11,0)
Slide 5 90 degrees (axial rotation)
Slide 2 90 degrees (frame orbits 90 degrees)
1:1 resonance
We would expect the red dot to be at (0,12) because of the elliptical orbit
If we zoom in, we see:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ygokhymfyw
The red dot is at (-1,11)
Note the black dot is still in the same reference point within the AX’Y’ frame but the frame has rotated
Reload the page
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/u8ptncektu
Slide ONLY 2 to 90 degrees
If we zoom in we see
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bbgocmpjne
The red dot is at (0,12) where it should be if the same face is pointing at the origin
You can re-run the steps above with this link to see the triangle or just go to Line 32 and turn the triangle on
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1mmofvkihu
I will post a separate walk-through to show why @MikeR’s views are non-physical
ftop_t 2:15 PM
You’ve been shown many times the correct way to simulate translation+rotation but you just will not learn.
Exhibit 1:
https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS
from: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
Exhibit 2:
https://ibb.co/bsyzbw7
from your own examples. Note that your case of translation only did not allow an exact comparison to the translation+ rotation example with circular orbit; why not? However my exhibit presents a good approximation, in the bottom row, showing 90 degrees of the orbit.
The discussion is about an external axis rotation with or without an internal axis rotation, not a translation with or without a rotation.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 9:41 PM
The discussion is about whether the Moon rotates about its [internal] axis as it orbits the Earth[external axis].
Your comment further demonstrates your ignorance of Kinematic and Dynamics. You are in way over your head here little buddy.
“The discussion is about whether the Moon rotates about its [internal] axis as it orbits the Earth[external axis].”
Exactly. So that is, like I said, a discussion about an external axis rotation with or without an internal axis rotation, not a translation with or without a rotation.
Once again…
The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
A very precise and elegant statement of reality.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 8:21 AM
You continue to try and play both sides of the court, but we all know you took the wrong side of the argument 3 years ago either out of ignorance or denialist inertia.
It’s time to piss on the fire, call in the dogs and head it back to the rock you crawled out from under.
You just conceded that an orbit was a rotation around an external axis. An object that is rotating around an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, always shows the same face to that external axis, whilst it moves.
That was a very precise and elegant statement of reality.
Tyson, you are correct since DREMT and ftop_t reveal they sometimes, without noting so, observe from an accelerated frame that inertially an orbit is a rotation around an external axis. An object that is rotating around an external axis in an inertial frame, without rotating about an internal axis observed from within the accelerated frame, always shows the same face to that external axis, whilst it moves. As demonstrated by ftop_t agreeing with Tyson’s bolded paragraph at 9:00am:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The whole debate boils down to which frame is the observation point.
No, Ball4. An object that is rotating around an external axis in an inertial frame, without rotating about an internal axis also observed from the inertial frame, always shows the same face to that external axis, whilst it moves.
"The whole debate boils down to which frame is the observation point."
Reference frames are a complete red herring.
Because DREMT states ref. frames are a “red herring”, DREMT will always remain wrong when DREMT confuses the reader which frame is DREMT’s observation point or wrongly states DREMT’s observation point. ftop_t deeply disguises an observation location but DREMT does not. ftop_t is correct in this link and corrects DREMT with this desmos demonstration:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Informed, critical readers can determine DREMT’s correct observation point easily for themselves, with ftop_t many times observation point is so well disguised that it isn’t worth the effort.
Sure, readers can decide for themselves. So you can stop commenting now.
Ball4 1:32 PM
I actually find ftop_t’s posts somewhat interesting since he at least puts some thought into them, although still out in left field.
D*R*E*M*T threw in the towel long ago and now just repeats himself attempting to play both sides of the court.
Also of interest is re-reading the beginning of the Moon argument from 3 years ago:
“the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. I know you were taught that. I know you probably can’t accept it. It’s somewhat like the GHE, you have no concept. Hilarious.”
It was intended to be a negative proof by evidence of absence. But in the end their only argument is that “it’s an illusion.”
I hope it is obvious that NASA’s statement about the Moon’s rotation is my favorite; that is because it swiftly dispenses with the bogus claim that there is ambiguity in the meaning of rotation vs orbit. However, to publicize the Artemis accord I will from time to time also quote from The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada: “Although the Moon appears to have no rotation, it must, in fact, rotate once per revolution in order to keep the same face toward the Earth.”
Tyson waffles up some more nonsense.
Tyson 2:54pm to clarify RAS-C: Although the Moon appears to have no rotation on its own axis to DREMT observing in an accelerated frame, it must, in fact, rotate on its own axis once per revolution of Earth in order to keep the same face toward the Earth as demonstrated with desmos observed from inertial frame s=r=1 by ftop_t:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
One of the first ftop_t’s desmos links had his inertial frame “s” easily shown confused with the accelerated frame s’. ftop_t recent desmos links are so many and so complicated, I’ll leave it to MikeR to do the work to figure out where s and s’ are lately confused by ftop_t.
From the inertial reference frame, the only way the moon can be said to be rotating on its own axis is if its motion is described as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. However, the simplest and most appropriate way to describe its motion is as one single rotation about a fixed, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the moon itself…and yes, that is also from the inertial reference frame.
Those are your two options.
1) Translation plus a rotation.
2) Fixed axis rotation.
Unfortunately for DREMT, ftop_t has already demonstrated that, as observed from the inertial frame cartesian coordinates, there is rotation about the center of mass of the moon itself, one full moon rotation on its own internal axis per orbit of the external axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Unfortunately for Ball4, he keeps linking to something that demonstrates the opposite of what he claims. In that link, it opens with only the external axis rotation slider moving, and the object moves like the moon.
Yes, you have it correct DREMT, ftop_t’s orbiting object moves like Earth’s moon; one full moon rotation on its own internal axis per orbit of the external axis. Lunar day/night moon cycles from the sun as shown.
Ball4 and Ftop if he is listening,
I think one of the issues with Ftop’s graphical calculator depictions is how he defines the parameters s and r. I thought I could try and look at his code.
However I am finding it difficult, due to my diminished intellectual capacities along with the difficulty to extract from desmos via cut and paste*, the actual code that generated Ftop’s depiction. Maybe there is a way of dumping the code but I have yet to find it (see diminished intellectual capacity).
Accordingly it would be of great assistance if Ftop could show the full derivation of the equations, including in details his reasoning, for the orbiting and axially rotating triangle.
That would assist in locating the stage in Ftop’s code where he employs the rotating reference frame (either explicitly or just implicitly) for his definitions of s and r.
* cut and paste mangles the symbols when transferring to a text editor and I don’t have the diligence, and definitely lack the patience, to do it by hand.
Regarding my lack of patience, it is just a sign of frustration regarding Ftop’s physics challenged, eye glazing, over complicated, geometric contortions.
As a postscript to the above, I have set another challenge to Ftop, which is predominantly geometric (just a touch of calculus), that should short circuit Ftop’s ambition to be the intellectual guru of the League of Contrarian Fruit Cakes, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-589939
No Ball4, it opens with only the external axis rotation slider moving. So it is only rotating about the external axis…and not rotating about the internal axis.
The slider is set to show no rotation in the accelerated frame from which DREMT is always observing.
The desmos link loads with a view of the object orbiting, all seen from the inertial reference frame. The object continually shows the same side to the external axis whilst it moves, and only the external axis rotation slider is moving in order to achieve this. You can move the internal axis rotation slider at the same time, and then the object starts rotating on its own axis as well as orbiting. Nobody is observing anything from the accelerated frame.
The slider is set up to show s=r=1 at the beginning and s’=0 but DREMT doesn’t understand that means DREMT, as always, is observing from the accelerated frame where the orbiting object is observed not rotating on its own internal axis. Observed from the cartesian coordinates the orbiting object is rotating once on its own internal axis per orbit at the start. The slider can be used to change this set up.
“Observed from the cartesian coordinates the orbiting object is rotating once on its own internal axis per orbit at the start“
No, it is not. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving at the start, so all it is doing is rotating around an external axis. Ball4 is as stupid as he is stubborn.
…DREMT again observes from s’ accelerated frame slider start position per ftop_t’s desmos implementation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Observed from inertial frame the orbiting object rotates once on its own internal axis per orbit of the center external axis & displays day/night cycle from the sun location.
“Observed from inertial frame the orbiting object rotates once on its own internal axis per orbit of the center external axis & displays day/night cycle from the sun location.“
No, it does not. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving at the start, so all the object is doing is rotating around an external axis. You do not have two rotations, one external and one internal, unless you also move the internal axis rotation slider. Ball4 is as stupid as he is stubborn.
Suddenly frames are not a “red herring” and worth discussing by DREMT. Because the object rotation slider is set up for s’ frame, all the orbiting object is observed doing by DREMT in s’ is rotating around an external axis at beginning. Check it out:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
For observers in the s frame cartesian corrdinates, the object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit. DREMT remians stuck in the s’ frame, never will leave.
Yes, reference frames are a total red herring. No, it is not worth discussing anything with you as your only intent is to troll. The only reason I respond to you is to set the record straight. I am not observing anything from the accelerated frame, because from that frame the object does not even appear to be moving at all. Have I described the object as not moving? No.
When you load up the desmos link, only the external axis rotation slider is moving. So the object is only rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis. It is moving in a circle, with the same face always oriented towards the external axis.
DREMT humorously writes “reference frames are a total red herring” then uses his “red herring” in discussion: “I am not observing anything from the accelerated frame”.
From the s’ frame the object is seen to be orbiting the central external axis so it is indeed moving as observed from s’ frame. The object is not observed rotating on its internal axis from the s’ frame so whenever DREMT makes the claim of no rotation, DREMT is then known to be observing from the s’ frame & not the cartesian coordinates of ftop_t’s s frame.
This situation will never change. ftop_t explains, for observers in ftop’s s frame cartesian coordinates, the object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Reference frames are a red herring because there are only two options for describing the motion of an object that orbits whilst keeping the same face oriented towards the center of revolution:
a) a translation plus axial rotation.
b) fixed axis rotation (about an external axis) with no axial rotation (internal axis).
These hold true regardless of reference frame. Nevertheless Ball4 has not described what is observed from the accelerated frame correctly.
Sorry I forgot above to mention with regard to fooling anybody, that the obvious exception is the leader of the confused contrarian fruit cakes and the other gullibles.
Might have been more of a zinger if you had been able to post this in the correct place.
Someone managed to work out the incredibly difficult non-sequitor puzzle.
That very same person also responded to the label “leader of the confused contrarian fruit cakes”.
Very clever fellow.
That’s “non-sequitur”, MikeR.
Yes DRUMT you are correct. T as in totally, U as in useless. You are getting better at recognising subtle clues.
Yes, I recognised the subtle clue that you were unable to spell “non-sequitur”.
Ftop – “What makes his GIFs even more absurd is he has a compass for North (ha!ha!). Where is North in a view of the Earth/Moon system looking at the rotational model.”
I am glad that I am bringing some small amusement to Ftop. His contributions are somewhat amusing but highly confused.
FTOP, I know you are concrete thinker but the compass is not a magnetic compass, but represents the direction of the North Celestial Pole which is pertinent, as the Moon is an astronomical body.
It could however be geographic North which aligns in azimuth to the N.C.P.. It could also be labelled top,bottom, left and right or perhaps +y, -y, +x, -x, referring to Cartesian axes.
Ftop – “Hint: it is at the origin (0,0) and if his GIF was accurate the small frame would rotate to keep the same side pointing to the origin.”
What is at the origin? My compass rose could be anywhere. Likewise my small frame could be anywhere, but by convenience is typically at the left, but on other occasions at bottom right.
Ftop, pretending to be stupid is rather pointless as you are not fooling anyone.
What ftop_t has repeatedly shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.
What ftop_t has repeatedly shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves unless ftop_t’s r=s=1 meaning the orbiting object rotates on its own axis once per orbit like his triangle, Madhavi’s Fig. 2(b) rectangle, Tesla’s wheel “fixt”, and Earth’s moon.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
It is not up for debate. I’m right, you’re wrong.
Not me, go argue with Tesla, Madhavi, Earth’s moon observers, and ftop_t.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
So…DREMT, as usual for a Chief cfc, has no argument to counter Tesla, Madhavi, Earth’s moon observers, and ftop_t. If so, DREMT would have countered. Thought so. MikeR, SGW, Tyson win the debate. DREMT has never won one single point based on evidence from any of them.
Tesla, Madhavi and ftop_t support my arguments you ridiculous troll.
Again, assertions without evidence; you have nothing Chief cfc DREMT. The others all have shown evidence & DREMT would show them counter evidence if DREMT had any.
Your 7:41 AM comment is refuted as follows:
Go to ftop_t’s link:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5
With r=s, the triangle shows all of its sides to the center of revolution.
Set s=0, the triangle shows always the same side to the center of revolution.
P.S: to use ftop_t’s desmos link, click on the circle in line 31 to activate “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting”, then move the slider or press play on line 1. Edit line 29 to change the s=r setting.
DREMT has actually done a better (but misguided) try at evidence that easily allows readers to find DREMT’s mistake.
Correcting DREMT’s mistake and setting r=s=1 desmos provides ftop_t evidence the triangle shows same side to the center of revolution throughout the orbit by rotating once on triangle’s own axis per orbit as shown using the inertial frame cartesian coordinates.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Same result as here for Fig. 2(b) but with a rectangle:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Same result for Tesla’s wheel assembly “fixt” (link formerly provided by DREMT) and actual Moon observations provided here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-586343
The link provided by DREMT 12:49pm is faulty because ftop_t misses the fact that there are two frames of reference mixed in desmos work s’ and s, one accelerated frame and one inertial frame.
The link I provided at 12:49 PM is not faulty, and it refutes your response.
Again, assertions without evidence; you have nothing Chief cfc DREMT. Show counter evidence that DREMT’s link does NOT mix frames.
So you can assert something is wrong with the link without evidence, or even an explanation, and you expect me to provide evidence that you are wrong!? How about you prove there is something wrong with the link!
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k/giphy.gif
Again, the link provided by DREMT 12:49pm is faulty because ftop_t misses the fact that there are two frames of reference mixed in desmos work s and s, one accelerated frame and one inertial frame.
DREMT has provided no counter evidence ftop_t has not done so.
Another child shows up to troll.
…s’ and s…
I see you are asserting something, Ball4. Not seeing any explanation, or more importantly, proof.
Ball4 2:26 PM
Again, the link provided by DREMT 12:49pm is faulty because ftop_t misses the fact that there are two frames of reference mixed in desmos work s and s, one accelerated frame and one inertial frame.
Agreed; the equations in Line 33 prove Ball4’s point.
Q.E.D.
Bullshit.
I and MikeR (and others) already pointed out evidence of the ftop_t mistake DREMT, but being that you are slow of mind I’ll spell it out again. In your faulty link ftop_t line 29: s=r.
r = rotation speed around the origin
s = rotation speed around the internal axis
s=0 should be s’=0 for the accelerated frame or r is also zero when r is clearly .NE. 0.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575869
After it was pointed out by at least MikeR, this is faulty mixing of frames, ftop_t apparently realizes he mixed up frames because ftop_t came back correctly later to program with s=r=1 in inertial frame so as I already wrote for the more quick of mind readers other than DREMT:
Correcting DREMT’s mistake and setting r=s=1 desmos provides ftop_t evidence the triangle shows same side to the center of revolution throughout the orbit by rotating once on triangle’s own axis per orbit as shown using the inertial frame cartesian coordinates.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Same result as here for Fig. 2(b) but with a rectangle:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Same result for Tesla’s wheel assembly “fixt” (link formerly provided by DREMT) and actual Moon observations provided here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-586343
The link provided by DREMT 12:49pm is faulty because ftop_t misses the fact that there are two frames of reference mixed in desmos work s’ and s, one accelerated frame and one inertial frame.
More bullshit.
Yes Tyson, the site will drop a prime if not careful: s’ and s…
DREMT continues with the evidence free commenting. Sad but funny.
An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.
D*R*E*M*T 3:25 PM and 3:34 PM
Not being a very gracious loser are you.
I know I am correct, Tyson. All the gaslighting in the world will not change that.
DREMT loses to ftop_t’s evidence once again with Chief cfc DREMT incorrectly writing 3:45pm without evidence: “An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.”
ftop_t proves slow minded DREMT is wrong with evidence:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.
I am as sure about that as I am that 2+2=4.
I also know that ftop_t agrees. As did Tesla: “The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
That was Tesla’s editor/translator writing; Tesla proved the opposite with his wheel assembly analysis. And Chief cfc DREMT still has provided NO evidence for his assertions whereas ftop_t evidence and other evidence all demonstrate the opposite with r=s=1 to what DREMT “knows”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Observe the moon rotate on its own axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-586343
You are either completely delusional, or you are attempting to gaslight. You keep asserting that people who are on record as agreeing with me are providing evidence that disagrees with me, and thus themselves. Who do you think you are kidding!? We have been through the desmos link that you keep linking to…the one with the sliders for external and internal axis rotation…when you click on the link only the external axis rotation slider is moving, and the object keeps the same face oriented to the center of revolution!
Q.E.D.
I’m not kidding anyone as I keep providing evidence that disagrees with DREMT & provided by themselves: Tesla wheel analysis, ftop_t desmos link, moon rotation observations link, and Madhavi Fig. 2(b) link – all in unison disagreeing with DREMT. DREMT needs to provide evidence backing DREMT assertions which so far DREMT has not provided. DREMT simply “knows”. Science doesn’t work that way DREMT.
Tesla’s articles support me. ftop_t’s desmos work supports me. Madhavi Fig. 2(b) supports me. What are you on?
No evidence of that from DREMT, just assertion. All the actual evidence shown so far always demonstrates against DREMT. You would think DREMT would fight back with real evidence but not so far. Maybe some day…
No evidence of that from Ball4, just assertion. All the actual evidence shown so far always demonstrates against Ball4. You would think Ball4 would fight back with real evidence but not so far. Maybe some day
DREMT yelps:
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.
LMAO. His proofs consist yelping slogans over and over. Does he ever provide mathematical proof using standard kinematic equations for for velocity? Never. He is too much of a dumbass regarding physics and kinematics.
I’m terribly sorry, SGW, but what ftop_t has repeatedly shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.
A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.
No DREMT:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Yes, thanks for the support, Ball4.
Another proof that a disk welded to a rotating arm rotates about its own axis:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
Notice what it says for the alternate problem on the right:
Consider a problem similar to Example 5.B.7 described to the left, except here the disk is welded to arm OC. For this case, OC rotates about O and the disk both rotates and translates. For this problem, the initial potential energy of the system goes into rotational KE for the bar and translational KE for the disk, in addition to rotational KE for the disk.
It is very clear that when they declare the disk both rotates and translates that they are referring to a rotation about its COM, because with the problem on the left where the disk is not welded, the disk only translates, i.e. it is not rotating about its COM. Plus with the disk welded, the disk is described as having both rotational and translation KE.
Poor DREMT. It must get tiring losing all the time.
They still think objects which cannot rotate on their own axes, are nevertheless rotating on their own axes! Dumb.
Poor DREMT is confused regarding inertial reference frames.
The above animation is from a Perdue Mechanical Engineering course.
https://www.purdue.edu/freeform/me274/animations/
Who to believe? Purdue or the dumbass DREMT?
Purdue is just teaching what I was taught in the mechanical engineering course I took at university.
Professor Beanie came to the same conclusion as I did with the ball/string proof.
SGW is determined to have the exact same discussion over and over again. We already know that there are two possible ways of looking at the motion of something like the ball on a string:
1) a pure rotation of the ball about a fixed, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
2) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus a rotation about that center of mass.
Both descriptions apply from the inertial reference frame, so reference frames are just a huge red herring, generally. Description no. 2) is often found to be used in calculations, such as with the parallel axis theorem as discussed, but it does not mean that the ball is actually rotating on its own axis in the true physical sense. As Tesla explained, it is just an abstract conception.
The reality is, something that cannot physically rotate on its own axis, when stationary, is not rotating on its own axis, when moving in a circle.
Poor DREMT continues to display his complete ignorance regarding kinematics.
All he can do is yelp out his slogans, hoping that repetition and text bolding will do the trick. Because he never EVER produces mathematical calculations to support his stupidity.
And then he resorts to dropping names like Tesla, who was equally confused regarding this issue.
Yelp on!
https://giphy.com/gifs/DNCE-3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k
OK, SGW.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/snoring.gif
#2
OK, SGW.
DREMT in his natural state:
https://the-hollywood-gossip-res.cloudinary.com/iu/s–CrzOGSoi–/t_xlarge_l/cs_srgb,f_auto,fl_strip_profile.lossy,q_auto:420/v1454506522/attachment/little-girl-is-confused-gif.gif
#3
OK, SGW.
Tidal locking is the reason that the Moon rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth (https://tinyurl.com/Moon-Earth-tidal-locking). Except for libration, this results in the Moon keeping the same face turned toward Earth, as seen in the left figure. (The Moon is shown in polar view and is not drawn to scale.) If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.
The question that arises then is, given that the Moon’s near and far side are very different geologically (https://tinyurl.com/Moon-Near-Far-Side), why is it that the Moon became tidally locked in the present orientation and not the opposite side facing Earth? It doesn’t seem to have been an equal chance occurrence.
Give it a rest.
Tyson, this article has your answer when I entered your question into google. It explains recent research shows a 2 to 1 chance the present maria would end up facing Earth when the moon internal axis rotation slowed down to rotating on its own axis once per Earth external axis orbit; ref.s a 2/27/2012 Icarus paper “Why do we see the man in the moon?”
.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
…when the moon internal axis rotation slowed down to rotating on its own axis zero times per Earth external axis orbit…
…observed from the accelerated frame.
Ball4, you think that from the inertial reference frame, the moon rotates on its own axis. So, define your reference frame. Where is the origin located?
It is observed (see 12:13pm article) from inertial frame that the moon rotates on its own axis. One possible inertial frame origin location is demonstrated here in black Cartesian coordinates:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Going by that desmos link, you are arguing the origin is within the Earth. Correct?
The desmos link shows the black cartesian coordinate inertial frame origin is defined to be within the non-zero radius central orange entity.
Indeed…and if the orbiting object is meant to represent the moon, then the stationary orange entity is meant to represent the Earth. So you are arguing that the origin is within the Earth. Correct?
I am arguing the desmos link shows the black cartesian coordinate inertial frame origin is defined to be within the non-zero radius central orange entity.
God, you are pathetic.
The orbiting object in that desmos link is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, in the inertial reference frame you have just defined. Not from the accelerated frame. From the inertial reference frame.
DREMT now bungles inertial physics like ftop_t. This is expected as MikeR & Tesla (with wheel assembly physics) have already correctly pointed out.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
That was Tesla’s incorrect editor and/or translator, Tesla himself proved with his wheel assembly physics that Earth’s moon does indeed rotate on its own axis. DREMT has not proved otherwise.
No, it was Tesla. Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Ball4 12:13 PM
Most excellent! Thx.
You’re welcome.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 1:36 PM You are doing a heck of a job there Brownie! https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
Thank you.
What is also interesting is that in many, many, many Moons in the future, the Earth’s rotational speed will slow down due to the same tidal effects, so that the Earth’s rotation speed will match the Moon’s orbital speed.
In this case an observer on the Moon will only see one side of the Earth and conversely observers on only one side of the Earth will see the Moon!
https://www.universetoday.com/128350/will-earth-lock-moon/
By this time, in many billions of years, TLCFC ( the b.s. artist formerly known as anGer) might have worked out that both the Moon and Earth are still rotating on their axes.
However I wouldn’t hold my breath.
For those that lack the necessary patience, mutual tidal locking is currently the case for Pluto and its moon Charon and is described here –
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/pluto-moons/charon/in-depth/
and also in this fascinating YouTube video.
https://youtu.be/qMTRiql9fvM
.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, ger.an. You are passionately, desperately and pathetically obsessed with the wrong person.
And you never had sex with that woman.
It might be more believable if you just came out and said that ger.an was a deranged idiot.
You are passionately, desperately and pathetically obsessed with the wrong person.
And it was his DNA on the dress anyway. Despite this, the Team Leader of the Contrarian Fruit Cakes is still defending anGer’s honour. Maybe he is related?
At least TLCFC knows when he is being spoke to. If he was smart enough he would just cease replying, but he can’t resist, as he wouldn’t win by his “last comment wins argument” methodology.
#2
You are passionately, desperately and pathetically obsessed with the wrong person.
Here is another interesting article about tidal locking and the possibilities of life elsewhere.
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/physical-world/2020/can-a-tidally-locked-planet-support-life
MikeR is absolutely desperate to have the last word, as always.
By responding TLCFC yet again confirms the following,
1, He is aware of his status as a fruit cake.
2. His only victories are by “last comment wins”.
Any further commentary without any introducing anything of relevance to the actual debate re lunar rotation is just repetition of point 2.
On that note, another interesting article re tidal locking is
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/space-colonies-on-tidally-locked-planets/582661/ .
#2
MikeR is absolutely desperate to have the last word, as always.
@MikeR,
It is fitting you use a dumbbell.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-598129
“However you will have trouble convincing any competent physicist that you can calculate the angular momentum and energetics for the situation below using just desmos and a rotating frame of reference. Particularly if you assert that the orbiting object is not rotating on its axis, see –
https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif
This is your challenge. It also depends on whether you believe A or B is the correct depiction.”
In your absurd GIFs again, that lack any mathematical rigor, maybe you can figure out:
Based on the formula for angular velocity:
v = rw
for the two ends of the dumbbell (END1) and (END2), do you believe
v(END1) = v (END2)
If one end of the dumbbell is 2 units from the origin, and one end is three units from the origin, based STRICTLY on a rotation about the origin WITHOUT any rotation of the dumbbell within the accelerating frame, the velocity of each end would be:
v(END1) = 2w
v(END2) = 3w
When you release the dumbbell, based on the angular velocity about the ORIGIN, the farthest end will be traveling 50% faster than the closer end.
What motion will happen if one end of an object is moving faster than the other end upon release? Do you think the greater angular momentum of the one end THAT IS NOT ROTATING ABOUT ITS OWN CENTER OF MASS just disappears? Where does the extra 50% of linear velocity for the far end of the dumbbell go? Lala land?
Per your challenge, the rotational movement upon release can be satisfied COMPLETELY under CATEGORY 2!!
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xflut0w20h
In the angular velocity DESMOS example Line 20 & 21 apply the angular velocity formula to the closest and furthest side of the orbiting object
If you take a few hours, you might be able to figure out that Line 20 Line 21.
Again, you have proven me correct that the motion is determined by the angular velocity with respect to the distance (radius) from the origin.
Thanks.
“Again, you have proven me correct that the motion is determined by the angular velocity with respect to the distance (radius) from the origin.”
ftop_t, in any such experiment motion will be determined by nature, while the origin & frame thus velocity is arbitrarily assigned. To do the proper analysis of the experimental motion, the location of any arbitrary origin & frame has to be properly accounted. I’m fairly sure MikeR will be along shortly to comment & repeat the explanation to you of other physics issues in your comment with more detail.
Ftop,
I appreciate your note of thanks that I agree with the following equation, but it really wasn’t necessary.
v = r.w
However I must point out again that v represents the magnitude of the tangential velocity (or speed), not angular velocity (w). You keep making this same newbie mistake.
Yes , you are correct , of course that the speed of either end followed v = r.w which is true for all points of the dumbell on a stringm where r is the radius of the orbit. This is pure rotation around an axis and was never in doubt.
What is actually is in dispute is whether the motion can ALSO be described as orbiting of the point at the centre of mass plus rotation about the centre of mass.
Ftop, I note with bemusement your claim that my comments lack mathematical rigor. I laugh in your face! Here is a rigorous, but simple calculation, based on physical conservation laws, that I presented several weeks ago , but will now repeat for Ftop’s sake.
For the following
w is the angular velocity, R is the orbital radius of the centre of mass , I is the moment of inertia and V cm is the velocity of the centre of mass.
1. From Conservation of Energy
while rotating
E tot = 1/2 m. R ^2. w^2 + 1/2 I.w^2 (eqn. 1 )
after the string breaks
E tot = 1/2 m. Vcm^2 + 1/2 I.w^2 (eqn. 2 )
2. From Conservation of Linear Momentum for the Centre of Mass
m.Vcm = m. R. w (eqn. 3 )
The magnitude of the velocity of the centre of mass after the string breaks is the same as it is while orbiting.
3. From Conservation of Angular Momentum
while orbiting
L tot= L orb + L rot (eqn. 4 )
L orb = m.(Vcm X R) = m.Vcm .R = m. R w ^2 (as Vcm = R.w) (eqn. 5 )
L tot = m. R w ^2 + I . w (eqn. 6 )
while moving tangentially
L tot = m . Vcm . R sin ( theta) + I. w (eqn. 7 )
theta is the angle between the centre of mass and the object as it moves it tangentially ( simple geometry demonstrates that the term R. sin(theta) = constant).
The only solution, that is not mathematically and physically nonsensical, is that the dumbbell is rotating on its axis while it is orbiting i.e. I.w is not equal to zero. QED.
Finally, the fruit cakes claim that the moon DOES NOT ROTATE on its axis .
Consequently contrarians those who hold this belief need to disprove the rotational thesis, not simply show that they can duplicate the motion geometrically with a single rotation.
Accordingly Ftop, rather than demonstrating again v=r.w for the dumbell, which again was never in doubt, should concentrate his efforts proving that the dumbbell DOES NOT ROTATE on an axis through its centre of mass, as the centre of mass “orbits” ,
You can do this via desmos calculations or more simply by disproving the above conservation of momentum and energy equations for before and after the string breaks.
Due to the terminal state of my dementia, I would prefer the latter.
Let’s see how you go.
Ya. What MikeR said.
In a similar vein, I would also add this rotational animation example from Purdue University:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
For the system on the right with the disk welded to the arm, if you did not take into account that the disk does rotate on its own axis (C) wrt the inertial reference frame, you would get the wrong answer for the kinetic energy of the system. As the description indicates:
For this case, OC rotates about O and the disk both rotates and translates. For this problem, the initial potential energy of the system goes into rotational KE for the bar and translational KE for the disk, in addition to the rotational KE for the disk.
Tesla and his Telsa-ites would struggle with the above, stupidly exclaiming, but the disk is welded to the bar! It can’t rotate! And we’d have a good laugh in their general direction.
I can assure you, we’re having the last laugh.
“Tesla and his Telsa-ites would struggle with the above”
Tesla would not struggle as Tesla proved the same thing as Purdue with Tesla’s wheel assembly physics analysis in the “fixt” balls at end of spokes case SGW. It is Tesla’s editor and translators that were as inept as Chief cfc DREMT et. al. last heard from laughing at Tesla’s editor.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own internal axis in an accelerated frame. For the inertial frame, Tesla demonstrated the moon does rotate on its own internal axis and proved so with his wheel assembly “fixt” ball at end of spoke physics analysis which is beyond DREMT’s, and Tesla’s editor, understanding.
No, Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
It really is too bad Tesla’s wheel assembly analysis is beyond DREMT’s ability to properly understand.
It really is too bad that it is beyond Ball4s ability to properly understand that Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
We? LMAO. Only two clowns left. Dumb and Dumber. DREMT and F_Troop.
I have provided two sample problem from university lecture notes which totally refute your contention that a ball attached to a rod does not rotate on its own axis. I also submitted a proof that the ball on a string rotates on its own axis by using the kinematic velocity equations for two points on a rigid body. You could not dispute the numbers because you are too much of a dumbass in regards to physics. You don’t know how to SOLVE kinematic problems.
You got nothing. You just incessantly bark your slogans with no understanding whatsoever.
…and yet, I’m right.
ftop_t 8:36 AM
Ftop_t still does not know the difference between angular velocity and tangential velocity!
He claims to have studied Maths and rambles on about mathematical rigor but does not understand that v=rw represents the cross product of the radius and angular velocity vectors, and what is the cross product? Anyone? It is a vector perpendicular to the crossed vectors. So, no, I dont believe Ftop_t has studied much Math!
Also, and for the sake of completeness, as has been stated many times before, angular velocity is dtheta/dt where theta is the rotation angle about the center of mass of the rigid body. As a result, angular velocity is the same for all points on the rotating body. Instantaneous tangential velocity varies with radius from the center of mass. Points on the equator have the same angular velocity as points closer to the poles, but tangential velocities are greater closer to the equator than to the poles. Why does he think NASA launches its rockets from Cape Canaveral, FL?
Apologies to the intelligent adults here for this digression but Ftop_t, our resident Wikipedia scholar, provided a good coaching moment.
An object that orbits whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution is rotating about a fixed, external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
No DREMT, ftop_t did successfully prove otherwise showing DREMT is wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
At least ftop_t can program desmos showing DREMT wrong while ftop_t does have issues with actual physical reality as proven by MikeR, SGW, and Tyson et. al.
That desmos link proves me right. Please do keep linking to it.
Sure, ftop_t proves with proper desmos geometry programming way beyond DREMT’s ability to understand that the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of an external axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
No, the desmos link proves me right. Please keep linking to it.
ftop_t 8:36 AM
It is clear now why this figure https://ibb.co/Z6WRJYF threw ftop_t for a loop when I first referenced it not very long ago!
It is clear now to anyone reading that an object that orbits whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution is rotating about a fixed, external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
I just love how the goal posts move…
@MikeR states:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-598129
“However you will have trouble convincing any competent physicist that you can calculate the angular momentum and energetics for the situation below using just desmos and a rotating frame of reference. Particularly if you assert that the orbiting object is not rotating on its axis , see –
https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif
After I demonstrate that the motion would result from the distance each end is from AN EXTERNAL AXIS and that there is no requirement that the dumbbell rotate on its own axis to produce the MOTION A upon release, the story changes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-599219
“Yes , you are correct , of course that the speed of either end followed v = r.w which is true for all points of the dumbell on a stringm where r is the radius of the orbit. This is pure rotation around an axis and was never in doubt.
What is actually is in dispute is whether the motion can ALSO be described as orbiting of the point at the centre of mass plus rotation about the centre of mass.”
So it went from “convincing any competent physicist” to “can ALSO be described”
Keep your eye on the lady for the 3-card Monte game.
Ftop,
Quelle horreur! I have supposed to have shifted the goal posts without asking permission. What impertinence!
If I was cynical I would believe you were trying to avoid doing a calculation that employs physics.
However, if indeed, I have shifted the goal posts , I assure you this would have been due to our dispute becoming repetitive.
Your continuing inability to either accept the existence of the inertial reference frame or , if it exists, its relevance to calculations of physical quantities continues to be painfully boring.
Your insistence that, because you could calculate the orientation with one rotation about an axis for a circular orbit, meant that calculation via orbiting of the centre mass and axial rotation could not be true, was bafflingly stupid and again tediously boring.
I must repeat, that due to the vast amount of material that is available in scientific publications and on the Internet that strongly supports the thesis that moon is rotating, then the onus is on the contrarian fruit cakes to disprove the the thesis.
Demonstrating that you can perform a single rotation that keeps the object facing the centre of rotation does not cut the mustard or even the dijonnaise.
p.s. if you want to have an attempt ( be brave) at the physics of the tangentially moving object that, until now, you have studiously avoided, then you might earn some respect from myself, see my calculations at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-599219
What was also funny is how MikeR acted like “this is pure rotation around an axis and was never in doubt”, even though the other three, Tyson, SGW and Ball4 do not accept that the motion of a ball on a string etc can be described as a “pure rotation around an axis” with no rotation about the center of mass of the object. MikeR acknowledges casually what we are arguing as if it was “never in doubt” even as the others around him continue to doubt it.
Ho-hum,
The ball on a string , unlike the Moon/Earth system, can be treated as a rigid body, like ftop does, and accordingly v=r.w.
In this rigid body description, the ball is also rotating on its axis w.r.t. to the external inertial frame, as has been explained ad nauseam, so there is no conflict with this description and Tyson, Ball4 and Skeptic views. If there is, then I bow to their expertise as they are much more intelligent than I am.
On that latter point, ftop has been a major disappointment and will be referred to, from now on, as tflop (t for total). Alternatively it could refer to total fruit loop.
W.r.t. the external inertial frame, the only way you can claim the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis is if you describe its motion as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. Alternatively, also w.r.t. the external inertial frame, you can describe its motion as a single rotation about a fixed, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object. So, reference frames are irrelevant to this problem.
With me so far?
…with no rotation about the center of mass of the object from the accelerated frame.
No, I already said, w.r.t the external inertial frame.
…which was wrong, as ftop_t shows the object rotates once on its internal axis per external axis orbit viewed from the cartesian coordinate inertial frame:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
So, DREMT, go argue with ftop_t and Tesla’s physics.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The wheel on an arm diagram has been introduced several times to demonstrate that the moon is rotating. I have contended that a rotation around an external axis is being misconstrued as a rotation of an object about its own axis. In particular, this diagram has been presented as “proof” it is an axial rotation.
https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif
Confusing a rotation around an external axis as an axial rotation leads to some interesting anomalies.
In the GIF:
A = 2 rotations about the axis
B = 1 rotation about its axis
C = 0 rotations
I contend that:
A = 1 axial rotation and 1 rotation about an external
B = 1 rotation about an external axis
C = 1 rotationa about an external axis and 1 negative axial rotation
Here is a circle that represents a fence.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fryy6jftlr
One person is going to measure the fence by holding a measuring wheel to the outside of the fence
One person is going to measure the fence by holding a measuring wheel to the inside of the fence
Both wheels are the same size, and each time they touch points, it represents a full rotation of the wheel
I contend that each wheel rotates three (3) times around its axis when measuring the fence.
Based on the depictions above, the spinners would argue:
The inside wheel rotates twice on its axis
The outside wheel rotates four times on its axis
Thus the fence is a different length based on where you measure if from.
If we change the radius of the fence from 3 units to 2 units:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8yh6f7sunp
Does the outside wheel rotate three times on its axis while the inside wheel rotates only once?
Including the orientation changes from an external axis rotation as a part of an axial rotation leads to inconsistency in movement.
The reality is that each wheel rotates the same number of times on its own axis and appears differently based on whether the axial rotation is in the same direction as the external axis rotation or if it is opposing.
ftop_t 12:10 AM
Given that B here https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS, is the same case as shown in this NASA video https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709, and accompanied by the following description:
“An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn’t rotate. While it’s true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation. The animation shows both the orbit and the rotation of the Moon. The yellow circle with the arrow and radial line have been added to make the rotation more apparent. The arrow indicates the direction of rotation. The radial line points to the center of the visible disk of the Moon at 0 N 0 E.”
It appears that ftop_t has finally moved up (or is it down?) in the ranks of non-spinners (i.e. deniers of reality) and is in the same class as this http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191 infamous commenter.
Will ftop_t be writing to NASA next? If so please keep us apprised of their responses.
Of course B is the same case as shown in the NASA video! Why do you think we have been discussing balls on a string and other examples where the same face of the object is oriented towards the center of revolution!?
Wow, some people are slow.
Answer the question:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fryy6jftlr
How many times does the inside wheel rotate on its axis?
How many times does the outside wheel rotate on its axis?
ftop_t 7:56 AM
Will you answer my question?: Will ftop_t be writing to NASA next?
Meanwhile chew on this: https://ibb.co/4FsNq00 No gotchas or tricks, just Physics expressed in the language of Math.
Proper answers to both ftop_t questions depend on frame of the observer & ftop_t didn’t specify the observation frame as usual.
So…ftop_t, lay your fence line down parallel the x-axis.
ftop_t’s dotted circle rolls along the x=-3 ground line being measured to the right. The wheel centers all start at x=0 with blue dotted wheel 0,0 and the orange triangle wheel at (0,-2) and the red triangle wheel is below ground (0,-4) – there must be a dug out trench. Then start all measuring wheels rolling to the right constant speed, the blue dotted wheel rotates once on its axis while the other two exhibit 3 rotations each along the fence line. This is rectilinear translation in an inertial frame of your Cartesian coordinates since dv/dt=0 for all objects.
Now roll up ftop_t’s fence line as shown. Your blue dotted wheel still rolls once on its own axis to measure the fence line, this is curvilinear translation for a non-rotating on its own axis object at the contact point in the inertial frame. But now look at your two circles, they are accelerating because their dv/dt .NE. 0.0 their velocity vector is changing due rotation (change in orientation) on their own internal axis. If you properly account for that acceleration going back to the inertial frame then 3 rotations = 3 rotations for both.
BUT with the accelerated objects you can see 2 and 4 rotations from inertial space Cartesian coordinates. This is entirely because ftop_t is now showing accelerating objects. If you fix an accelerated frame to an accelerating object (orange or red), then an observer in that frame observes zero rotations on internal axis & 1 rotation of external axis through 0,0 (orbit) with other objects rotating about them.
ftop_t exercise ought to teach ftop_t that accelerated object frames have to be properly accounted back to inertial frame to discuss rotations or a statement made the observer is defined to be in an accelerated frame.
You should eventually recognize the experts in 3D space dynamics at NASA do know what they are writing about (see Tyson at 7:03am) because NASA successfully shoots objects right past Pluto properly accounting frames for object rotations for stability and picture taking.
The purpose of this view is to demonstrate that two independent axis can lead people to a visual perspective that is not consistent with the underlying physical movement.
Frame of references, accelerated frame, inertial frame are not germane.
The model is simple.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cvaj87xmut
Each of the two circles are a unit circle
The radius of the fence is set in Line 2
The # of axial rotations of each circle are the same, BUT, one is clockwise and the other is counterclockwise
The axial rotations of each circle are set to the radius so that the circles rotate along the fence the same number of times and corresponds to the perimeter of the circle
Perimeter of unit circle x radius of fence = perimeter of fence
Perimeter of Unit circle = 2(pi)
This is obvious because for radius = 3, the points touch at 0, 120, 240, 360 degrees. If you change the radius to 4 (Line 2), the points will touch at 0, 90, 180, 270, 360 degrees
Rotations are directional, so the visual illusion comes when having the radius set at three (3), the:
Outer circle rotates counterclockwise three (3) times (+)
Inner circle rotates clockwise three (3) times (-)
The arm rotates counterclockwise one time (external axis rotation)
Thus both circles experience four (4) rotations (three axial rotations + 1 rotation of the arm around the origin)
Visually, a person sees:
Outer circle has 3 axial rotations + 1 arm rotation = 4 rotations VISUALLY
Inner circle has -3 axial rotations + 1 arm rotation = 2 rotations VISUALLY
NONE OF THIS DEPENDS ON FRAME OF REFERENCE, ACCELERATED FRAMES, OR INERTIAL FRAMES.
It is simply the fact that rotational movement has a direction and the appearance of rotational movement can be deceiving.
Line 4 allows the number of axial rotations to be offset. So if you set o = -2, it reduces the axial rotations so now
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3fzbwqvebr
Visually, a person sees:
Outer circle has 1 axial rotations + 1 arm rotation = 2 rotations VISUALLY
Inner circle has -1 axial rotations + 1 arm rotation = 0 rotations VISUALLY
The only thing that has changed is the number of axial rotations are now -1 and 1 respectively; The inside circle is still rotating clockwise – BUT it LOOKS like it is not rotating on its axis
Now stop the axial rotations (set Line 4 = -3) and both circles are no longer rotating about their axis and only rotating about the origin.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hf73vzdmak
Line 5 let’s you flip the inside triangle so they both face the same way, but this is just to simplify the visual
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wmi0tgbxfm
In this view, neither circle is rotating on its axis, it is only the arm that is rotating.
All that has happened is the axial rotations have gone from
-3 & 3 to 0 & 0
For a person observing perched on the Cartesian coordinate inertial system: “Visually, a person sees: Outer circle has 3 axial rotations + 1 arm rotation = 4 rotations VISUALLY
Inner circle has -3 axial rotations + 1 arm rotation = 2 rotations VISUALLY
NONE OF THIS DEPENDS ON FRAME OF REFERENCE, ACCELERATED FRAMES, OR INERTIAL FRAMES.”
because that a person is perched on the inertial frame observing accelerated objects. And ftop_t mistakenly adds external and internal rotations confusing centers of rotation.
Visually, a person observing from the outer circle (an accelerated frame) sees: Outer circle has 0 axial rotations + 1 arm orbit about 0,0 = 0 internal axis rotations + 1 external axis rotation VISUALLY.
Frame of references, accelerated frame, inertial frames are demonstrated germane to rotation counting by this exercise.
ftop_t should learn from this that the moon has one rotation on its own axis per orbit of Earth just like NASA writes observed in the inertial frame.
In the accelerated frame observed by an astronaut attached to the moon, she observes the moon to have 0 rotations on its own internal axis during 1 orbit of Earth on external axis.
Don’t forget that Ball4 is a troll, ftop_t. So no matter how many times you explain that reference frames are not germane, he will just respond that they are. It’s the latest thing that he has latched onto, and he will likely not ever let this one go.
@DREMT
Yup. Two people walking on opposite sides of a fence are in completely alternate universes – who knew…
A record player is actually a device to bend space and time.
Anyone with an intuitive grasp for geometry would realise, that for the outer rotating triangle, the surface it is rolling on is convex and the surface recedes as it rolls. For the inner rotating triangle, the surface is concave and accordingly the surface approaches as the inner object rolls.
For objects rolling on an external surface the number of contact points (cusps) is N-1 where N is the number of rotations. In this case N =4 and the number of contact points is 3. See epicycloids.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
For objects rolling on an internal surface the number of contact points (cusps) is n +1 where n is the number of rotations. In this case n =2 and the number of contact points is 3. See hypocycloids –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocycloid
Accordingly the two people on opposite sides of the fence will measure the same length.
The only confusion with regard to this, is currently located at the centre of mass of Ftop’s skull.
“The purpose of this view is to demonstrate that two independent axis can lead people to a visual perspective that is not consistent with the underlying physical movement.”
I now know what I can get the mega-flop for Christmas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirograph
The only thing that has changed is the number of axial rotations are now -1 and 1 respectively; The inside circle is still rotating clockwise BUT it LOOKS like it is not rotating on its axis
This is why ftop_t and the rest of the clowns always get things backward, and will never understand kinematic problems.
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
The inside circle in his quote above looks like it’s not rotating on its axis because it’s not rotating on its axis wrt the inertial reference frame. It’s translating. It does rotate on its axis wrt a rotating reference centered on the origin and rotating at the same rate as the dashed orange line.
This is why ftop_t can’t even accurately count axial rotations. Every count in his above post is totally wrong. He would FLUNK any kinematic course he might attempt to take. This is why all the sample problems I’ve referenced from university lecture notes totally disagree with the non spinner clowns.
https://giphy.com/gifs/ringlingbros-clowns-ringling-bros-eHoEz68RyM144
SGW is still confused about reference frames!
ftop_t
Non-spinners do not accept the long standing principles of kinematics, physics and mathematics and make-up their own definitions to suit their distorted purposes. Period. That’s why you cannot be taken seriously.
Your “contention” regarding C is just wrong on every level. The moon in C is undergoing curvilinear translation per every definition you will find in any physics book, kinematics book, mechanical engineering book, etc. With translation, curvilinear OR rectilinear, a line in the body remains pointing in the same direction at all times. I won’t even bother with A and B. You make up definitions, ignore inertial reference frames, and basically just butcher the field of kinematics.
With your fence example, you are either stupid, or a f***ing liar. I think you are a f***ing liar and stupid. The measurement of the fence is the same for each circle. You are just playing games with relative motion. Yes, the outside circle rotates 4 times on its own axis, and the inner circle rotates 2 times on its on axis. The contact point for the two circles have the same velocity, so we know they will travel the same distance for each orbit of the fence and therefore provide the same measurement. You can even observe that the vertex point of each isosceles triangle meet up with each other on a regular basis, so the length measurement will be the same.
My contention is you clowns are a bunch of dumbasses.
Ah, but since the moon in B is just rotating about a fixed, external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass (as per every definition you will find in any physics book, kinematic book, mechanical engineering book etc), then the moon in C must be rotating about a fixed, external axis in one direction whilst rotating about its own axis in the opposite direction, once per orbit.
You’ll get there, once you’ve learned a few kinematics basics.
Answer the question:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fryy6jftlr
How many times does the inside wheel rotate on its axis?
How many times does the outside wheel rotate on its axis?
Apologies,
I see that you believe the outside wheel is rotating
4 times on its axis
whereas the inside wheel is rotating
2 times on its axis
You realize that the fence could be a mirror.
Revisiting the argument:
“What is actually is in dispute is whether the motion can ALSO be described as orbiting of the point at the centre of mass plus rotation about the centre of mass.”
So in the example:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fryy6jftlr
Since the movement is equivalent to the point orbiting and an axial rotation, we can calculate the perimeter of the fence by multiplying the circumference of the wheel by the number of rotations
I contend it is:
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the outside wheel
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the inside wheel
Since it is “equivalent”, based on the centre of mass, the fence is also:
4 rotations = 4 x 2(pi) = 8(pi) when measured from the outside wheel
2 rotations = 2 x 2(pi) = 4(pi) when measured from the inside wheel
Thus the fence has three difference lengths in equivalency world.
ftop_t,
Let’s label the vertex point of each isosceles triangle within each wheel as “C”. How many times does “C” on each triangle make contact the fence? That would be 3 times. Each time C makes contact, that is one complete circumference of each wheel. The circumference of each wheel is the same, Einstein. Therefore the measurement is the same no matter what wheel you use, genius. The length of the fence does not have different lengths in equivalency world. You screwed up by making wrong assumptions.
SGW misses the point, as usual.
ftop_t 7:51 AM
It would help you to better understand your own deception if you allowed the wheels (circles) to rotate at the same speed as the triangles inside them. Line 19 (w,z) and Line 20 (cos(s), sin(s)) dont match the rates of motion of the triangles.
Don’t be obtuse.
Those points represent the rotation of the bar the wheels are attached to:
I’ll connect the dots for you on Line 21
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9d7ftzngok
You can buy one at Lowe’s
https://www.lowes.com/pd/Lufkin-Measuring-Wheel/3878546?cm_mmc=shp-_-c-_-prd-_-tol-_-google-_-lia-_-216-_-measuringtools-_-3878546-_-0&placeholder=null&ds_rl=1286981&gclid=Cj0KCQiA3smABhCjARIsAKtrg6KGPrgOtRh9Er5qPuIHEHOy-gQEaNZ1hf1EBycSEdlRWfBdjprvNbUaAo5OEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
They work by clicking a counter for every rotation of the wheel and are used to measure the distance of things – like a fence.
ftop_t 10:20 AM
speaking of obtuseness, are you familiar with the concept of wheel slippage? It is a very useful concept.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Quest_for_Quality_Data/A8nnjrKEnhwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=schlumberger+depth+wheel+slippage&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover
ftop_t 10:20 AM
This is how it’s done: https://ibb.co/4FsNq00
If you believe the fence is a different length when measured in a clockwise direction vs measured in a counter-clockwise direction than come out and say it.
If you think two unit circles have different perimeters – state that.
Slippage? You have truly jumped the shark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
ftop_t 10:44 AM
Yes, slippage. I expected that to go over your head!
But, if you will not admit to wheel slippage then you have moved the goalposts [again] and are now tracking a moving point inside each rotating frame.
When addressing the issue of the Moon’s rotation around its own axis we use this setup: https://ibb.co/B2XWmKY of a rotating frame translating within a fixed frame. There is no movement from the perspective of observer A, only from the perspective of observer O.
Now, you have introduced movement from the perspective of observer A’ and A’’ (https://ibb.co/4FsNq00). This is like saying that here https://ibb.co/8YWqTX2, point B is moving with respect to observer A and implicitly of course with respect to observer O.
ftop_t,
How you can continue to show your face in here is beyond belief. You have ZERO concept of the principles of kinematics, which is why you came up with this boneheaded measuring the fence example.
You can’t even properly measure the counts for axial rotations because you do not provide a proper reference frame.
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
This is why you clowns are in an ultra fringe group of nutcases.
All we can do is continue to point out your bullshit, a task which you make quite easy.
Lol at the relentless hostility. So upset by the fact that a ball on a string is rotating about a fixed, external axis and not about its own center of mass, regardless of reference frame. Such a simple truth, as settled as 2+2=4, yet for some reason it makes grown men lose their shit on a climate blog. Oh well. The Non-Spinners win yet again.
Such a simple DREMT physical untruth as demonstrated by Tesla’s physics analysis of his wheel assembly spokes with “fixt” balls rotating once on their own axis per wheel center orbit in the inertial frame just like a ball on a string & Earth’s moon. DREMT and ftop_t refuse to accept the reality of physics and relativity.
ftop_t used desmos to show agreement with Tesla here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Hilarious troll Ball4 links to ftop_t’s desmos work in which an object moves like a ball on a string with only the external axis rotation slider moving. He proves himself wrong, and the Non-Spinners right. Thanks, Ball4.
DREMT continues to not understand that ftop_t slider is set to no rotation as observed in the accelerated frame because both DREMT and ftop_t refuse to accept the reality of Tesla’s physics and relativity.
The results of moving both sliders are observed from the inertial reference frame. The object moves like a ball on a string with only the external axis rotation slider moving. Case closed.
Tesla Figure 5 when the ball is fixt to the spokes:
it is found that the kinetic energy of each ball is increased, the increment being exactly the energy of rotation of the ball on its axis. This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis
Tesla gets one thing right, and is in agreement with the Purdue University example problem where a disk welded to a rotating rod has additional kinetic energy due to the disk’s rotation about its own axis in comparison to when the disk is not rotating on its own axis:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
Yes, the object moves like a ball on a string staring at the center of the orbit while rotating once on its own internal axis in the inertial frame of cartesian coordinates wherein ftop_t used desmos to show agreement with Tesla here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Since, as SGW shows, DREMT doesn’t agree with Tesla, DREMT should go argue with Tesla.
Keep reading:
"Let the system be rotated as first assumed and illustrated, the balls being perfectly free on the pivots, and imagine the latter to be gradually tightened to cause friction slowly reducing and finally preventing the slip. At the outset all particles of each ball have been moving with the speed of its center of gravity, but as the bearing resistance asserts itself more and more the translatory velocity of the particles nearer to the axis O will be diminishing, while that of the diametrically opposite ones will be increasing, until the maxima of these changes are attained when the balls are firmly held. In this operation we have thus deprived those parts of the masses which are nearer to the center of motion, of some kinetic energy of translation while adding to the energy of those which are farther and, obviously, the gain was greater than the loss so that the effective velocity of each ball as a whole was increased. Only so have we augmented the kinetic energy of the system, not by causing axial rotation of the balls."
Also, let’s add just a little bit more to SGW’s quote, which he conveniently left out:
"This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow. But it does not tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry."
Amazing how dishonest these people are.
Tesla means it is a fallacy of those who say ball M does not rotate on its own axis to their (DREMT’s) eye when “fixt”. Tesla’s physics show when “fixt”: “in this instance ball M – presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis” as SGW has already pointed out and DREMT refuses to accept.
Amazing how dishonest DREMT can be.
Wrong, Ball4. Your reading of Tesla is laughable.
Get it through your thick skull – Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
That was Tesla’s layman editor’s incorrect statement DREMT. Tesla’s wheel assembly physics show “general notion that a gyrating body – in this instance ball M – presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis” so go argue with Tesla’s physics. According to Tesla, is a fallacy of the eye that ball M does not rotate on its axis when “fixt”.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
ftop_t 10:44 AM
So if you think stipulating no slippage as a necessary condition for evaluating this type of problem, then be sure and read MikeR 5:32 AM here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-602380, from which I quote the following:
“Mathematical basis
Consider a fixed outer circle CO of radius R centered at the origin. A smaller inner circle Ci of radius r<R is rolling inside CO and is continuously tangent to it. Ci will be assumed never to slip on CO (in a real Spirograph, teeth on both circles prevent such slippage)."
You need to learn some basics.
Poor Tyson. Nobody takes him seriously.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:49 AM
You seem to hang on my every word!
Don’t be silly, child.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:49 AM
You remind me of my dog attentively waiting for me to give him a command.
OK, my little inferior. Don’t get yourself all worked up.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:49 AM
Heel!
Hush now, little one.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:49 AM
Fetch https://ibb.co/qWw5Y1P
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:49 AM
hee hee!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:49 AM
You are very easily triggered!
#2
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
C’mere boy!
#3
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
That’s a good boy! https://ibb.co/mJgqJWJ
#4
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
C’mere boy! Treatsy!
#5
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
C’mere boy. Breakfast!
Can you spell Pavlovian?
#6
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
That’s a good boy! Now lay there quietly ’till your afternoon treat.
#7
There’s no need to reduce yourself to this just because you lost an argument, Tyson.
Re –
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fryy6jftlr
Anyone with an intuitive grasp for geometry would realise, that for the outer circular object, the surface it is rolling on is convex and the surface recedes as it rolls. For the inner object, the surface is concave and accordingly the surface approaches as the inner object rolls.
For objects rolling on an external surface the number of contact points (cusps) is N-1 where N is the number of rotations. In this case N =4 and the number of contact points is 3. See epicycloids.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
For objects rolling on an internal surface the number of contact points (cusps) is n +1 where n is the number of rotations. In this case n =2 and the number of contact points is 3. See hypocycloids –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocycloid
The only confusion with regard to this, is located directly on axis midway between the ears of Ftop’s skull.
“The purpose of this view is to demonstrate that two independent axis can lead people to a visual perspective that is not consistent with the underlying physical movement.”
As is typically the case with @MikeR, he goes out of his way to post links to prove I am correct. :-)!!
If one scrolls down for the “Proof” in the Epicycloid link,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
The derivation is achieved by determining the ratio between:
(theta) = angular change times radius(R) of the large circle (orbital rotation)
(alpha) = angular change times radius(r) of the smaller circle (axial rotation)
Since the smaller circle is rolling along the larger circle,
R(theta) = r(alpha)
This creates a ratio of (alpha) = R/r(theta). The revolving point can be located by resolving these two angular changes
The location of the axis of the smaller circle is:
x = (Radius of the large circle (R) + Radius of the small circle (r)) x COSINE (the orbital rotation (theta))
y = (Radius of the large circle (R) + Radius of the small circle (r)) x COSINE (the orbital rotation (theta))
x = (R + r)cos(theta)
y = (R + r)sin(theta)
The location of the point on the smaller circle relative to its internal axis is:
x = (Radius of the small circle (r) + COSINE (the orbital rotation (theta) + the axial rotation (alpha))
y = (Radius of the small circle (r) + SINE (the orbital rotation (theta) + the axial rotation (alpha))
x = r(cos(alpha + theta))
y = r(sin(alpha + theta))
Reminder:
R = orbital radius to objects internal axis
r = radius of the orbiting object
(theta) = orbital rotation
(alpha) = axial rotation
The point location is then.
x = (R+r)cos(theta) – r(cos(alpha + theta)
y = (R+r)sin(theta) – r(sin(alpha + theta)
If there is no axial rotation, so (alpha) = 0, we get…
x = (R+r)cos(theta) – r(cos(0 + theta)
y = (R+r)sin(theta) – r(sin(0 + theta)
Combine terms and we have…
x = (R)cos(theta)
y = (R)sin(theta)
So the location of the point facing the orbital rotation stays closest to the origin (external rotational point) IF THE AXIAL ROTATION IS ZERO
Visually, it looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/o1s87pqnmu
The ratio of orbital-to-axial is 1:0
The orbiting circle is NOT ROTATING ON ITS OWN AXIS
Fortunately, someone already produced the same derivation of the proof for the Hypocloid
https://www.geogebra.org/m/f3Xbwnz3
Thanks @MikeR for posting the link that confirms my DESMOS postings.
Again, VISUALLY both orbiting circles are NOT ROTATING ON THEIR OWN AXES in the accelerated frames. Both orbiting circles are ROTATING ON THEIR OWN AXES once per orbit in the inertial frame of Cartesian coordinates.
As ftop_t writes, since the smaller circle is rolling along the larger circle one complete roll per orbit as observed in the Cartesian coordinate frame.
If (alpha) is ZERO. It is not rotating on its own axis from ANY REFERENCE FRAME.
ZERO = ZERO
You can study how zero applies in mathematics here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_element
If (alpha) is ZERO. (The smaller circle) is not rotating on its own axis from ANY REFERENCE FRAME is a bungle showing ftop_t does not understand reference frames.
In an accelerated ref. frame attached to the smaller circle, the smaller circle (a moon of the nonzero radius object at the center) cannot be observed rotating since the frame is attached to it. In that accelerated frame ZERO = ZERO rotations on smaller circle own axis. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_element
Back in the inertial frame ONE = ONE. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1
An example of ftop_s buffoonery:
I contend it is:
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the outside wheel
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the inside wheel
Since it is “equivalent”, based on the centre of mass, the fence is also:
4 rotations = 4 x 2(pi) = 8(pi) when measured from the out side wheel
2 rotations = 2 x 2(pi) = 4(pi) when measured from the inside wheel
Thus the fence has three difference lengths in equivalency world.
The above was stupidly wrong. He confused himself. And now he continues with more nonsense.
He does not understand the inertial reference frame. He does not understand physics. He does not understand kinematics and would flunk any such course he might attempt to take.
Just go away, you moron. I already proved the ball on a string rotates on its own axis
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564609
ClintR and Gordon quit posting they were so embarrassed. All we have left are two idiots. One who incessantly yelps other people’s slogans, and the other who confuses and debunks himself.
"ClintR and Gordon quit posting they were so embarrassed."
Not at all. They just moved on to more recent articles. There have been additional discussions about the moon in the comments under those articles, which they have commented on.
They’re probably not even aware that the discussion is still continuing under this article. Like most people.
@SkepticGoneWild
“Since it is “equivalent”, based on the centre of mass, the fence is also:
4 rotations = 4 x 2(pi) = 8(pi) when measured from the out side wheel
2 rotations = 2 x 2(pi) = 4(pi) when measured from the inside wheel
Thus the fence has three difference lengths in equivalency world.”
I was making fun of you.
God are you dense!!
F-troop,
You can’t even count to one. You can’t figure out what an axial rotation is. You think something is rotating when it is sitting perfectly still. You completely misunderstand the concept of translation.
You obviously have never taken a kinematics course in your life. You clowns are just recycled Tesla idiots in regards to the moon’s rotation.
Do you wonder why there are so few of you in the world?
F-troop,
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
The disk on the right that is welded to the arm rotates on its own axis and has additional kinetic energy due to that rotation.
The disk on the left that is not welded to the arm, does not rotate on its own axis and does not have KE due to rotation.
Try to keep up.
"Let the system be rotated as first assumed and illustrated, the balls being perfectly free on the pivots, and imagine the latter to be gradually tightened to cause friction slowly reducing and finally preventing the slip. At the outset all particles of each ball have been moving with the speed of its center of gravity, but as the bearing resistance asserts itself more and more the translatory velocity of the particles nearer to the axis O will be diminishing, while that of the diametrically opposite ones will be increasing, until the maxima of these changes are attained when the balls are firmly held. In this operation we have thus deprived those parts of the masses which are nearer to the center of motion, of some kinetic energy of translation while adding to the energy of those which are farther and, obviously, the gain was greater than the loss so that the effective velocity of each ball as a whole was increased. Only so have we augmented the kinetic energy of the system, not by causing axial rotation of the balls."
Only so have we augmented the kinetic energy of the inertial system, not by causing axial rotation of the balls M in the accelerated system.
A properly informed, critical editor and translator would have caught these commenting errors but DREMT is not educated enough to do so & repeats the physics errors incessantly.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
…in the acclerated frame.
#2
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
ftop_t said:
Thus the fence has three difference lengths in equivalency world.
I was making fun of you.
God are you dense!!
You fucking liar. This is what you said before I even made any comment:
Based on the depictions above, the spinners would argue:
The inside wheel rotates twice on its axis
The outside wheel rotates four times on its axis
Thus the fence is a different length based on where you measure if from.
You STUPIDLY argued that, and I quote, “Thus the fence is a different length based on where you measure if from”. And then you went on to stupidly calculate the different lengths.
You are pathetic ignorant moron.
Yes, SGW…”the Spinners would argue”. He was making fun of the Spinners position.
You are a funny bunch, after all.
@SGW
I wasn’t sure if you were really this vacuous, but I guess you wanted to make sure everyone knows you are.
I asked the question concerning how many rotations the inner and outer circle are making and got a response from the “Lord of the Idiots”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-600924
“Yes, the outside circle rotates 4 times on its own axis, and the inner circle rotates 2 times on its on axis. The contact point for the two circles have the same velocity, so we know they will travel the same distance for each orbit of the fence and therefore provide the same measurement.”
Everything about this statement is wrong and the implication is that the fence is a different length when measured from opposite sides.
You might know the person who said this. He is a Spinner and lives in equivalency world. You can find him next to the guy with the shirt that says “I’m with Stupid” Since you are amazingly dense, I should be clear – IT IS YOU
I responded with the implications of this assertion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-600893
“Since the movement is equivalent to the point orbiting and an axial rotation, we can calculate the perimeter of the fence by multiplying the circumference of the wheel by the number of rotations
I contend it is:
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the outside wheel
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the inside wheel
Since it is equivalent, based on the centre of mass, the fence is also:
4 rotations = 4 x 2(pi) = 8(pi) when measured from the outside wheel
2 rotations = 2 x 2(pi) = 4(pi) when measured from the inside wheel
Thus the fence has three difference lengths in equivalency world.”
The reason you are lost and don’t understand is because others have argued that an orbital rotation is “equivalent” to a translation and an axial rotation. I jokingly referred to this as “equivalency world”. I wanted to point out why they are not equivalent
You can tell my position, because it starts with “I contend”
If you are in the camp that thinks they are equivalent, the implication is the fence has three lengths.
But you are not satisfied with being below average, you had to add
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-600968
“Lets label the vertex point of each isosceles triangle within each wheel as C. How many times does C on each triangle make contact the fence? That would be 3 times. Each time C makes contact, that is one complete circumference of each wheel. The circumference of each wheel is the same, Einstein. Therefore the measurement is the same no matter what wheel you use, genius. The length of the fence does not have different lengths in equivalency world. You screwed up by making wrong assumptions.”
Now in your own posts you agreed with what I contended and claimed they both rotate three (3) times on their own axis.
You are on record saying the outside circle rotates 4 times and 3 times on its own axis while the inner circle rotates 2 times and 3 times on its own axis.
The whole point of my post was to show that it leads to three different lengths which you didn’t even realize is derived from YOUR OWN POSTS as I linked to above.
The number of times you miss the point is stunning. I honestly can’t believe you are this dense; but here we are?!?
Ftop_t stupidly says:
Now in your own posts you agreed with what I contended and claimed they both rotate three (3) times on their own axis.
No I did not you retard, proving you’re a complete moron when it comes to kinematics. This is exactly what I stated:
How many times does “C” on each triangle make contact the fence? That would be 3 times. Each time C makes contact, that is one complete circumference of each wheel.
Did I say they rotate 3 times on their own axis, Einstein?? No, you moron. I said point C makes contact 3 times. This is why you and Tesla are such idiots. You mix up reference frames. You don’t understand the inertial reference frame. Look at your diagram again:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9d7ftzngok
Both “wheels” DO actually rotate 3 times on their own axes, but only wrt to a reference frame centered on the origin and attached to the rotating blue line, but not with respect to the inertial reference frame, Oppenheimer. That’s why I was careful with my statement about C making contact 3 times.
Talk about vacuous.
SGW, yes, ftop_t has the same fence length for all three wheels when they are laid out flat. When ftop_t rolls the lengths up into a circle, ftop_t does not properly depict that same length of fence for the inner wheel center nor the same length of fence for the outer wheel center. ftop_t then mistakenly claims the fences are different lengths in ftop_t’s improper circular fence length depiction you link.
The same result as obtained when mixing up accelerated and inertial frames. Relatively is hard, ftop_t has demonstrated with desmos that ftop_t has not mastered the subject.
ftop_t,
Do you want to be humiliated again? I am happy to oblige.
SGW, you are the one humiliating yourself.
Above post re-edited for clarity:
Ftop_t stupidly says:
Now in your own posts you agreed with what I contended and claimed they both rotate three (3) times on their own axis.
No I did not you retard, proving youre a complete moron when it comes to kinematics. This is exactly what I stated:
How many times does C on each triangle make contact [with] the fence? That would be 3 times. Each time C makes contact, that is one complete circumference of each wheel.
Did I say they rotate 3 times on their own axis, Einstein?? No, you moron. I said point C makes contact 3 times. This is why you and Tesla are such idiots. You mix up reference frames. You dont understand the inertial reference frame. Look at your diagram again:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9d7ftzngok
Both wheels DO actually rotate 3 times on their own axes, but only wrt to a reference frame centered on the origin and attached to the rotating blue line, but not with respect to the inertial reference frame, Oppenheimer. Thats why I was careful with my statement about C making contact 3 times.
Talk about vacuous.
You completely missed the point ftop_t was making…and you are a hyper-aggressive clown.
You completely missed the point ftop_t was making
Here’s your chance, genius, to explain ftop_t’s point I missed.
I am waiting.
Keeping it very, very simple so you can understand:
He was arguing that from the Spinner’s perspective, you would have to say that the two wheels are spinning different numbers of times on their own axis, even though they are not, and that this would necessarily lead you to conclude that the fence had different lengths, even though that is impossible.
You then came in stupidly arguing that he was saying the wheels are spinning different numbers of times on their own axis, and thus the fence had different lengths. Which was wrong. He was arguing that this is what your stupid viewpoint would lead you to conclude.
I just wanted to confirm that he was an idiot after all. Which is STILL why he does not show his face here or respond.
I never said anywhere that the fence would have different lengths as he suggested. Secondly, I never said the wheels rotated three times on their own axes as he contended. He lied as usual. And lastly and more importantly he is DEAD WRONG regarding the rotation of the wheels being 3 times on their own axes, and he realizes this now and is too embarrassed to show his face.
He, like you, like Tesla, keep changing or ignoring reference frames. Based on the inertial reference frame, the outer wheel rotates 4 times on its own axis, and the inner wheel rotates two times. They do not rotate 3 times on their own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and I never said they did.
The idiot is using the rotating blue line as his reference. And the wheels DO BOTH rotate three times on their own axes wrt that rotating line. You can easily count the rotations.
Ftop_t was hilariously exclaiming I was the imbecile, when it was actually HE who was the idiot. He lied about what I claimed and then stupidly used a rotating reference frame to count the wheel rotations in an attempt to prove his point. And you support that dunce.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9d7ftzngok
You still do not get it…
If you ever take a kinematics course, you might finally understand. But you would flunk anyway.
It’s laughable that you are attempting to cover for the stupidity of ftop_t. All you EVER do is make unsupported declarations, which is meaningless.
Let him come back here and try to explain his stupid mistakes.
He won’t.
I doubt he would bother to come back considering your total inability to follow a discussion, but maybe, I suppose…
SkepticGoneWild February 7, 2021 at 1:45 PM
It would serve flop_t well to simplify his display so he can better appreciate the difference between the fixed frame and the rotating frames, e.g.: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/i93ab9mjku.
I do believe his latest is, hands down, the Mother of all self-debunks!
What you can’t get your head around is that it has nothing to do with reference frames. It entirely boils down to “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”? How does an object that is orbiting but not rotating on its own axis remain oriented?
“Spinners” argue that such an object remains oriented towards the same distant star whilst it orbits. “Non-Spinners” argue that such an object keeps one face always oriented towards the center of revolution whilst it orbits.
That’s all there is to it.
“Non-Spinners” argue that such an object keeps one face always oriented towards the center of revolution whilst it orbits as observed from the “non-spinning” accelerated frame.
That’s all there is to physics reality.
Straw man.
ftop_t 3:45 PM
More deflections, evasions and Gish Gallops from flop_t who continues to spend interminable hours generating Physics-free cartoons in hopes of concealing the fact that he never learned what every child (at least in the U.S.) learns in grade school. What a buffoon he is!
He should spend time in grade school here https://ibb.co/qNN0M6V, and here https://tinyurl.com/Intro-to-the-Moon, before debasing himself further.
Tyson, we’re all aware that the prevailing opinion is that the moon rotates on its own axis, and that you can find hundreds of articles on the web which state that. You don’t need to keep linking to examples, as if it’s a surprise every time.
They’re mistaken. The moon does not rotate on its own axis, it’s rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter. The motion is commonly referred to as "orbiting". The Earth both "orbits" and "rotates on its own axis", the moon only "orbits".
Earth’s moon does not rotate on its own axis as DREMT & Tesla observe from the accelerated frame attached to Earth’s moon. There are hundreds of articles on the web which state that correctly along with Tesla’s physical example of balls M on end of his wheel spokes as observed from the inertial frame:
“in this instance ball M – presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis”.
Ball4 12:09 PM
Yep. Only the non-spinner buffoons would refer to the consilience of evidence about the Moon’s rotation as “the prevailing opinion.”
The chief idiot also offers a diatribe about the Earth-Moon barycenter as the basis of his argument while admitting that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun (not unlike the Earth-Moon binary)but omits the fact that the Earth orbits the Earth-Sun barycenter too! Does he know what a barycenter is? Apparently no.
As I said, Tyson, the Earth both “orbits” and “rotates on its own axis”. The moon only “orbits”.
…as observed from the frame attached to the moon.
No, as observed from the inertial reference frame (as you defined it further upthread).
So to summarize, he responds when referred to as the “chief idiot” and, does not know what a barycenter is.
Physics: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
Wrong DREMT as Tesla tried to show you but you are not educated enough to understand that for the inertial frame: “in this instance ball M – presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis”.
Ball4 deliberately quote mines Tesla. Full quote:
"This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a gyrating body — in this instance ball M — presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis in the same sense, as indicated by the short full arrow. But it does not tho to the eye it seems so.”
“But (the non-“fixt” ball) does not tho to the eye it seems so.”
DREMT remains as confused as ever by Tesla’s editor and translator use of “it” as they are not educated enough to understand Tesla’s “fixt” ball M on end of wheel spoke physics prove the “fixt” ball rotates on the “fixt” ball M axis once per orbit.
The translators/editor also do not include the frame in which Tesla is observing causing much confusion. The confusion is totally eliminated once the reader is educated enough to understand Tesla’s observation frame of ref. is accelerated or inertial.
Poor Ball4. English is clearly not his native language. He gets so confused by even the simplest sentences.
The confusion is totally eliminated once the reader is educated enough to understand when Tesla’s observation frame of ref. is accelerated or inertial in any native language.
The confusion is eliminated once you are capable of reading and comprehending English. Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Ball4 1:28 PM
The chief idiot does not know what a barycenter is; of course he is not educated enough to know an inertial from an accelerated frame.
Yes Tyson. DREMT continues to not understand (DREMT will never understand) Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis in an acclerated frame as Tesla’s momentum, KE physics analysis showed for the inertial frame:
“In this Case the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O and the Other Rotational About C. The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass (M) Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame.
#2
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Crickets.
I guess the answer is no.
Only one non-spinner idiot left.
Move on.
SkepticGoneWild 12:37 PM
One updside is that given how long it’s taking, the next Desmos self-debunk may be the funniest yet!
Blah, blah, blah.
He’s done been ass whupped and bitch slapped. Shut him up good.
He helped win the argument, so has retired in victory.
He retired in disgrace with his tail between his legs.
Not in the least.
Ftop_t says:
Reminder:
R = orbital radius to objects internal axis
r = radius of the orbiting object
(theta) = orbital rotation
(alpha) = axial rotation
Ftop_t displays his ignorance. Alpha is NOT the axial rotation. It never states this anywhere in the link he provided. He should know better, but he obviously does not possess any knowledge of kinematics.
Here is a reminder for you: Don’t make stupid assumptions.
Alpha is the axial rotation if you are keeping axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, theta. Of course, if you want to mix up the two motions, as your kind generally does, then knock yourself out.
I would also like to remind the clown that it was HE who came up with the idea of “equivalency lengths”. We spinners would never come up with a stupid idea like that. This is what ftop_t said on January 27, 2021 at 12:10 AM:
Based on the depictions above, the spinners would argue:
The inside wheel rotates twice on its axis
The outside wheel rotates four times on its axis
Thus the fence is a different length based on where you measure if from……
The reality is that each wheel rotates the same number of times on its own axis and appears differently based on whether the axial rotation is in the same direction as the external axis rotation or if it is opposing.
The different length idea is his and his alone, but he attributed it to spinners. Notice the last sentence is in a different paragraph as well.
Secondly, the reality is each wheel does NOT rotate the same number of times on its own axis, and what appears to be the case IS the case. Ftop_t lives in a delusional rotating reference frame world where he gets confused.
_____
I contend it is:
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the outside wheel
3 rotations = 3 x 2(pi) = 6(pi) for the inside wheel
Since it is equivalent, based on the centre of mass, the fence is also:
4 rotations = 4 x 2(pi) = 8(pi) when measured from the outside wheel
2 rotations = 2 x 2(pi) = 4(pi) when measured from the inside wheel
Thus the fence has three difference lengths in equivalency world.
It was HIS idea from the beginning. Then he was WRONG in his contentions regarding the inside and outside wheel since he is using a non-inertial reference frame.
DREMT still gets confused with inertial and non-inertial reference frames.
Ftop_t says:
(alpha) = axial rotation
Let me fix that statement for the dummy:
(alpha) = axial rotation of the outer circle wrt the rotating line extending from the origin to the center of the outer circle.
So he’s using a non-inertial reference frame, and is apparently clueless of this fact.
What you can’t get your head around is that it has nothing to do with reference frames. It entirely boils down to “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”? How does an object that is orbiting but not rotating on its own axis remain oriented?
“Spinners” argue that such an object remains oriented towards the same distant star whilst it orbits. “Non-Spinners” argue that such an object keeps one face always oriented towards the center of revolution whilst it orbits.
That’s all there is to it.
The dummy said:
What you cant get your head around is that it has nothing to do with reference frames.
Purdue University lecture notes for a course in advanced dynamics:
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
Who to believe? Some clown in some blog chatroom? Or Purdue University lecture notes for a course in advanced dynamics? Wow! This is a tough decision!
This is why you clowns have everything backwards, why you can’t understand or solve the simple ball whirling on a string problem, and why you redefine kinematic terms.
You will never understand, and will simply remain stupid.
All descriptions in the following are wrt the inertial reference frame:
It entirely boils down to “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”? How does an object that is orbiting but not rotating on its own axis remain oriented?
“Spinners” argue that such an object remains oriented towards the same distant star whilst it orbits. “Non-Spinners” argue that such an object keeps one face always oriented towards the center of revolution whilst it orbits.
That’s all there is to it.
SkepticGoneWild 10:48 AM
I’ll take Purdue any day: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!1098&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AKAeswWEqeNehRc
Go Boilermakers. Boom-shaka-laka!
I just explained why it is not me vs. Purdue.
I would add that the ball on a string problem, the horse running a circular track problem, the Tesla Figure 5 apparatus, this Desmos epicyloid problem, are simple kinematic problems that have nothing to do with the distant stars and have everything to do with the inertial reference frame which you clowns ignore.
Ftop_t can’t count the axial rotations properly in the Desmos example because he is using a rotating reference frame. And then he claims I’m the moron, the f**king idiot.
It’s not a matter of differing opinions, it’s a matter of you clowns ignoring the standard long held conventions of kinematics and making up your own definitions to suit your distorted view.
So just ignore every word said, then. OK, SGW.
Ftop_t says on January 31, 2021 at 3:45 PM:
Reminder:
R = orbital radius to objects internal axis
r = radius of the orbiting object
(theta) = orbital rotation
(alpha) = axial rotation
The point location is then.
x = (R+r)cos(theta) r(cos(alpha + theta)
y = (R+r)sin(theta) r(sin(alpha + theta)
If there is no axial rotation, so (alpha) = 0, we get
x = (R+r)cos(theta) r(cos(0 + theta)
y = (R+r)sin(theta) r(sin(0 + theta)
Combine terms and we have
x = (R)cos(theta)
y = (R)sin(theta)
So the location of the point facing the orbital rotation stays closest to the origin (external rotational point) IF THE AXIAL ROTATION IS ZERO
Visually, it looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/o1s87pqnmu
The ratio of orbital-to-axial is 1:0
The orbiting circle is NOT ROTATING ON ITS OWN AXIS
As I pointed out, ftop_t makes a rookie mistake by declaring alpha to be the axial rotation of the outer circle. That is false, as anyone with knowledge of kinematics would realize. We count rotations wrt the inertial reference frame. Ftop_t is counting the rotation of the outer circle wrt a rotating line from the origin to the center of the smaller circle. So his whole proof falls apart.
ftop_t states above:
If there is no axial rotation, so (alpha) = 0, we get
Totally wrong since alpha is not a measure of the axial rotation. What we get is a total load of BS.
Ftop_t continues:
So the location of the point facing the orbital rotation stays closest to the origin (external rotational point) IF THE AXIAL ROTATION IS ZERO
Wrong again, and he hilariously capitalizes and bolds his mistake!!! Classic!
The saga continues. Ftop_t_finally concludes:
Visually, it looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/o1s87pqnmu
The ratio of orbital-to-axial is 1:0
The orbiting circle is NOT ROTATING ON ITS OWN AXIS
Einstein proudly declares the orbiting circle is not rotating on its own axis since alpha is zero. Wow! All those formulas and calculations down the drain. LMAO.
Here’s a Reminder for ftop_t. Take a course in kinematics!
As I already explained to you on the other thread, several times, alpha has to represent the axial rotation if you are to keep the orbital motion separate from the axial rotation. If orbital motion (without axial rotation) is defined as movement in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout, then alpha must represent your axial rotation. Otherwise you are not keeping the two motions separate!
The only way you can have axial rotation as you intend it, is to define orbital motion (without axial rotation) as movement in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards a distant star, throughout.
Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Thank you, However I am going through troubles with your RSS.
I don’t know the reason why I cannot subscribe to it.
Is there anybody having identical RSS issues? Anybody who knows the solution can you kindly respond?
Thanks!!
Education is the key to every kind of success, and therefore seeing that students in doctorate of philosophy are increasing it clearly shows that people have indeed put much more effort in studying.